PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine the architecture of internship coaching models from five innovative principal preparation programs in the Southeastern region of the USA. The researchers used coaching architecture in this context to include the assignment of coaches to interns, dosages, and enactment of evaluation and confidentiality.Design/methodology/approachThe researchers used a qualitative, collective case study research design that included semi-structured interviews of program directors and coaches from each of five programs, totaling 19 interviews that lasted from 30 min to an hour and 15 min each.FindingsCommonalities among architectures of principal intern coaching designs included coaching assignment by geography, frequency and format of coaching sessions and length of the internship. All five programs recommend continuing coaching into initial years of administration. Points of distinction pertained to the utilization of external versus internal coaches, confidentiality and evaluation by coaches.Research limitations/implicationsThis study may inform coaching models for principal preparation programs within similar contexts. Because all five programs are grant-funded within one US state, generalizability and transferability cannot be assumed.Practical implicationsThe authors provide design considerations for coaching programs, as well as policy considerations and directions for future research.Originality/valueWhile coaching is increasingly used in leadership preparation programs, there is a paucity of research regarding the nature of coaching models, especially in terms of their architecture. The researchers examine, compare, and contrast coaching model architecture, raising important considerations for coaching designs.
Faculty in practitioner-oriented EdD programs must continually defend the presence of rigor in their programs. The existence of rigor determines the preparedness of our educational leaders to disrupt and transform educational organizations to bring about equitable and socially just outcomes; however, perceptions of rigor by the larger community impact the overall success of these programs and their students. In this conceptual article, we discuss the ways in which the literature defines rigor within and beyond practitioner-oriented EdD programs. We integrate that the literature with the critical need for social justice leadership, and leadership preparation toward that end, to offer a conceptual framework for designing, assessing, improving, communicating, and defending the rigor of EdD programs centered upon social justice. We posit: EdD programs can claim to be rigorous and centered upon social justice if their faculty: (1) collectively envision and construct rigorous student learning outcomes (rigor as a challenge) connected to the learning of critical theory and the demonstration of critical praxis to improve the lives of marginalized/underserved students; and (2) use backward-design to develop and align curriculum and pedagogy with those outcomes, including scholarly learning experiences (rigor in research) and the elicitation of students’ critical thinking (rigor as complexity).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.