Ways of interacting: What underlies instructional coaches' discursive actions

Haneda, Mari; Sherman, Brandon; Bose, Frances Nebus; Teemant, Annela

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.017

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine studies examined coaches who were external to the coaching context (e.g., researchers, graduate students). In these studies, coaching related to particular approaches to literacy teaching: Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Haneda et al, 2019; Teemant, 2014; Teemant et al, 2011), Collaborative Strategic Reading (Jacobs et al, 2018), new literacies (Skinner et al, 2014), Targeted Reading Intervention (e.g., Varghese et al, 2016), and Questioning the Author (Kim & Silver, 2016). Fifteen studies examined coaches who were school- or district-based employees.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found evidence of horizontal flow in slightly less than half of the studies. In some (Haneda et al, 2019; Ippolito, 2010; Marsh et al, 2015; McGrath & Bardsley, 2018; Parsons, 2018; Rogers, 2014; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010; Varghese et al, 2016; Vernon-Feagans et al, 2013, 2015; Zoch, 2015), horizontal flow was achieved through coaches’ attention to teachers’ context, engaging with the teachers’ literacy knowledge and skills with awareness of their classroom needs and responding with their equally specialized literacy knowledge. Coaches’ and teachers’ dispositions were those of “thinking together” (McGrath & Bardsley, 2018, p. 361).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…she would question enough that you’re gonna figure it out. You’re gonna figure out if it’s you or this activity or, you know?” (Haneda et al, 2019, p. 169)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to reports of having “space” in coaching interactions, other studies examined coaching initiatives in which emphasis was placed on the coaches’ role in monitoring the implementation of a specific curriculum or predetermined “best practices” (Haneda et al, 2019; Jacobs et al, 2018; Jones & Rainville, 2014; Kim & Silver, 2016; Salas et al, 2015; Skinner et al, 2014; Teemant, 2014; Teemant et al, 2011; Varghese et al, 2016; Vernon-Feagans et al, 2013, 2015). In these cases, the coach’s purpose was to act as the expert, impart knowledge of these approaches to teachers, and then monitor teachers’ implementation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To better understand these discrepancies, some researchers have chosen to focus less on how coaching programs are structured (i.e., duration, exposure, content) and more on the complex positionings and power evident in coaching relationships (e.g., Jones & Rainville, 2014), and the nature of particular discourse moves and macro-level interactional patterns during coach–teacher conferences (e.g., Haneda et al, 2019). These studies explore the underlying values and assumptions held about teaching and learning (Hunt, 2018), allowing the field to more fully understand the constellation of factors to improve coaching.…”

Section: Literacy Coachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

Robertson

Padesky

Ford‐Connors

et al. 2020

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This metasynthesis presents the collective findings based on a small corpus of studies ( n = 28) that examined literacy coaching in elementary and secondary settings from a relational perspective. We frame our analysis using Lysaker’s notions of relational teaching and theorize that, like classroom teaching, powerful literacy coaching is grounded in dialogic, co-constructive interactions in which the coach and teacher jointly develop new knowledge and skills. Our analysis indicates that the realization of co-construction may be influenced by differential patterns related to positioning and dispositions toward coaching: (a) knowledge flow, (b) distributed expertise, and (c) vulnerability. To explicate these patterns, we present evidence of opportunities that enhanced co-construction and obstacles that reduced co-construction. We conclude by discussing how coaches and teachers can develop reciprocity in coach–teacher relationships and move toward more relational coaching approaches. Finally, we provide directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…she would question enough that you’re gonna figure it out. You’re gonna figure out if it’s you or this activity or, you know?” (Haneda et al, 2019, p. 169)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literacy Coachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

Robertson

Padesky

Ford‐Connors

et al. 2020

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Facilitation Literacy: Circulating Power in Professional Learning Conversations With Teacher Colleagues

Lillge¹

2020

J Adolescent & Adult Lit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author describes how and why a team of literacy leaders fruitfully studied their own efforts to address the challenges they faced in supporting teacher colleagues’ learning and teaching. Actively resisting facilitation models that privilege facilitators’ power to fix colleagues’ dilemmas and consistent with their belief that professional learning is socially constructed, the facilitators adopted a view of power as a resource that, when circulated, offers people opportunities to be who they wish, and be seen as knowledgeable without challenge. To explore ways of circulating power, the facilitators studied transcripts of their interactions with colleagues. Through co‐analysis of their transcripts, the team identified five discursive strategies supporting circulation of power: identifying sticking points, listening, posing clarifying questions, reframing the challenge, and soliciting feedback. The facilitators’ efforts to circulate power cultivated generative social and discursive spaces, which afforded their colleagues opportunities to negotiate self‐identified dilemmas to advocate for themselves and their students’ literacy learning.

show abstract

The long arc of learning: Perspectives and innovations from 20 years of U.S. National Professional Development Program projects

Teemant,

Sherman,

Tyra

2024

TESOL Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U.S. National Professional Development (NPD) grants can afford a longitudinal understanding of how teachers learn to support English learners. When NPD projects are completed successively and successfully, they can provide an even greater longitudinal arc of understanding. This article chronicles the designs and lessons learned across five NPD grants between 2002 and 2023. Each grant represents a snapshot in time, presenting a set of assumptions from the field, programmatic innovations, and insights from research outcomes. From highlighting the difference between incremental and radical pedagogical change and what it takes to move beyond individual teacher change to systemic change benefiting multilingual learners, the article outlines the succession of aspirations (capacity building, sustainability, and scalability), experiences, changing conditions, and data points framing lessons learned and new cycles of praxis. This article offers implications for theory, practice, and research. It stands as an argument for adapting, innovating, and moving beyond the status quo to inspire more innovation in teacher preparation for multilingual learners.

show abstract

Ways of interacting: What underlies instructional coaches' discursive actions

Cited by 21 publications

References 26 publications

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

Facilitation Literacy: Circulating Power in Professional Learning Conversations With Teacher Colleagues

The long arc of learning: Perspectives and innovations from 20 years of U.S. National Professional Development Program projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About