Ways of interacting: What underlies instructional coaches' discursive actions

What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?

“…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.…”

“…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).…”

“…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)…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”