Unpacking productive coaching interactions: identifying coaching approaches that support instructional uptake

Robertson, Dana A.; Ford‐Connors, Evelyn; Frahm, Tia; Bock, Kristen; Paratore, Jeanne R.

doi:10.1080/19415257.2019.1634628

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first author was also employed as a literacy coach in two elementary schools. We have researched and written on the role of coaching discourse in relation to teachers’ uptake of instructional suggestions (Robertson et al, 2019), as well as coaching more broadly (e.g., Robertson et al, 2014). We acknowledge our position as proponents of professional learning that foregrounds teacher and student agency as one way to increase the likelihood of influencing ongoing instruction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

Robertson

Padesky

Ford‐Connors

et al. 2020

Journal of Literacy Research

Self Cite

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: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

Robertson

Padesky

Ford‐Connors

et al. 2020

Journal of Literacy Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A good relationship between coaches and teachers is also important to the success of the coaching process. This is often dependent on building positive relationships and effective communication through collaboration and coach guidance (Mitchell, Kwok, & Husten, 2019;Robertson, Ford-Connors, Frahm, Bock, & Paratore, 2019). Finally, many researchers have concluded that in order for teachers to use and integrate technology meaningfully, they must be guided by appropriate theoretical frameworks (Capurso & Dennis, 2017;Koehler & Mishra, 2009;Mishra & Kereluik, 2011;Puentedura, 2012) with individualized job-embedded coaching (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2010).…”

Section: Professional Development and Mobile Technology Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Art of Coaching: Addressing Mobile Technology Integration in a Complex Hospital School Environment

Maor

Mitchem

Drewry

2020

Continuity in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study examined the effects of a coaching program as part of a professional development effort to support integration of mobile technologies in a hospital school setting. The professional development consisted of two components: (a) the researchers introduced pedagogical models for incorporating mobile technology in education and (b) a technological expert (the iCoach) provided one-on-one and small-group personalized coaching. After studying the contextual challenges and teachers' needs over a period of 12 months, an effective coaching model emerged. This was a personalized model geared to each teacher and tailored to the unique features of this hospital context. An integral part of the model was a reflection strategy, which encouraged teachers to question their teaching with the purposeful use of technology. Data collection involved teachers' reflections, iCoach reflections, and semi-structured interviews. Many themes emerged from the data analysis; the two main ones were the uniqueness of the setting and the multiplicity of demands on the teachers and the iCoach. The study developed a set of guidelines to help teachers use technology in an integrated pedagogical way.

show abstract

“…Historically, experienced and/or successful classroom teachers were assigned coaching roles as school districts attempted to recast teachers' roles without necessarily affording them positional authority that an administrator might hold (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012;Ippolito, 2010). And while ample research that details what coaches do is emerging, limited studies actually examine how they do it (Laxton, 2016;Robertson, Ford-Connors, Frahm, Bock, and Paratore (2019). Furthermore, Desimone and Pak (2017) have recently recommended more in-depth inquiries into coaching models, specifically by asking how, when, and why questions.…”

Section: Research Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In practice, coaches typically learn about and actually define their role while the work itself occurs (Lord, Cress, & Miller, 2008). More recently, calls for coaches to intentionally engage teachers in "sense-making events" have occurred primarily because it pushes and enables them to reorganize their initial thinking and beliefs (Ketelaar, Beijaard, Boshuizen, & Den Brok, 2012;Laxton, 2016;Robertson et al, 2019). Supplanting and maintaining instructional change can unfortunately fail as "surface level" changes get reported, rather than actual teacher learning and growth (Coburn, 2004;Spillane, 2000).…”

Section: Coaching Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

McFadden

Roehrig

2020

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study explored how a STEM coach supported an elementary teacher during the implementation of an integrated curriculum that culminated with an engineering design challenge. The findings of the case study reported, detail how the reflective nature of the coaching moves employed failed to fully meet the needs of the teacher given the distinct challenges that arose upon implementation of the co-developed curriculum. By closely examining two primary data sources: (1) five extended coaching sessions, and (2) the coach's pre-post coaching log reflections; analysis identifies and explores how the pair's missed expectations produced unanticipated tensions that hindered the potentials of the teacher-coach relationship. Insights related to an elementary teacher's conceptions of STEM integration are also revealed within the data presented. Finally, analysis enabled discussion of strategies that might be employed to strategically support elementary teachers working with coaches; specifically exploring how differentiated supports based on prior experiences might be instituted.

show abstract

Unpacking productive coaching interactions: identifying coaching approaches that support instructional uptake

Cited by 14 publications

References 33 publications

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

The Art of Coaching: Addressing Mobile Technology Integration in a Complex Hospital School Environment

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About