A Data-Driven Coaching Model Used to Promote Students’ Response to Early Reading Intervention

Use of an Online Platform to Facilitate and Investigate Data-Driven Instructional Coaching

“…for the purpose of integrating mastered skills and strategies into a curriculum, a set of instructional goals, a time span, and a personal teaching style” (p. 170), there is no consensus today on core components for coaching. As Denton and Hasbrouck (2009) and Kurz, Reddy, and Glover (2017) have noted, the operationalization of coaching has varied widely, as defined by various coaching foci (e.g., technical support, problem solving), actions (e.g., observation, goal-setting, collaborative planning, modeling, practice, feedback), and desired outcomes (e.g., enhanced performance, environmental change, promotion of autonomy). Reflecting on research from a recent special journal issue on consultation and coaching, Erchul (2015) has recognized the importance of full operationalization and measurement of coaching as an independent variable with clearly defined components and the need to prioritize measurement of student outcomes rather than only teacher practices following coaching.…”

Supporting high school math and science teachers with universal design for learning implementation

“…In the high school setting, teachers would benefit from having a mentor or coach who has knowledge or background in the content area of the teacher they are working with in order to best support their colleague with building a curriculum to meet all students needs at all stages of the implementation of the framework of UDL (Campbell, 2017). Glover (2017) shared an instructional coaching model around data driven decision making. His model encompassed three primary components for successful coaching including an emphasis on the learning environment, coaches modeling best practices followed by opportunities for practice and feedback, and the use of formalized data to implement the framework.…”

“…Instructional coaches must be flexible in their approach to adult learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017;Glover, 2017;Hasbrouck, 2017). Thus, additional research is needed related to embedded professional learning opportunities around coaching for regular education teachers, specifically related to the implementation of UDL in the high school setting with subject area specialist teachers.…”

“…The survey data suggested that teachers either were not using this resource, were not finding value in it, or did not know about it because it was not mentioned as either a preferred or non-preferred method of professional development. The research tells us that instructional coaches must be flexible in their approach to adult learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017;Glover, 2017;Hasbrouck, 2017). The research further provided that there are different models of instructional coaching including the use of data to drive the work of the coach and teacher, the coach as a master teacher providing resources and modeling best practices to colleagues, or acting as a curriculum and/or content expert (Campbell, 2017;Desimone & Pak, 2017;Glover, 2017).…”

“…The research tells us that instructional coaches must be flexible in their approach to adult learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017;Glover, 2017;Hasbrouck, 2017). The research further provided that there are different models of instructional coaching including the use of data to drive the work of the coach and teacher, the coach as a master teacher providing resources and modeling best practices to colleagues, or acting as a curriculum and/or content expert (Campbell, 2017;Desimone & Pak, 2017;Glover, 2017). The model currently in use should be revisited and further explored to ensure that the coach is supporting teachers on the ground floor in implementing UDL through use of the UDL Progression Rubric and Four Shifts Protocol (Graber & McLeod, 2019;Novak & Rodriguez, 2018).…”