See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328642943

Teacher Coaching (Wing Institute Original Paper)

Article · October 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 704

3 authors:

Samantha Cleaver Jack States

University of North Carolina at Charlotte Wing Institute
12 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    69 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ronnie Detrich

62 PUBLICATIONS   536 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evidence-based Practice View project

Wing Institute Original Papers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jack States on 31 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teacher Coaching Overview

Coaching teachers is an established professional development practice in schools and has

been a focus of research (Wood, Goodnight, Bethune, Preston, & Cleaver, 2016). Teacher

coaching is a method of professional development that incorporates providing feedback and

support, often through modeling of a focused practice and classroom observations followed by

reflection conversations (Raney & Robbins, 1989; Wesley & Buysse, 2006). The goal is to

change teacher behavior with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement.

The purpose of this overview is to provide information about teacher coaching as it is

used in schools, the research that examines this practice as a method of teacher professional

development, and its impact on student outcomes.

Why is Teacher Coaching Important?

What teachers do in the classroom matters; teacher behavior and classroom practices

impact student achievement (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockhoff, 2011). Professional development

has been one way that districts have tried to impact teacher practice with the idea that it can

shape teacher behavior in ways that impact student knowledge (Yoon, Duncan, Scarloss, &

Shapley, 2007). Put another way, professional development may influence student achievement

by increasing teacher skill, which improves teachers’ ability to make decisions that positively

impact student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007).

When it comes to professional development, quality is important. Federal laws (e.g., No

Child Left Behind, Every Student Succeeds Act) have outlined a need for high-quality

professional development that improves teacher knowledge and provides effective instruction in

research based strategies (U. S. Department of Education, 2001). Specifically, the federal Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) maintains support for evidence based practices in the classroom,

1
funding for effective strategies, and efforts to promote the use of evidence based practices to

improve student achievement (ESSA, 2015). Under federal law, high-quality professional

development is:

1. Sustained, intensive, and focused around content,

2. Aligned with standards and assessments,

3. Designed to improve teacher knowledge,

4. Designed to improve teacher use of evidence-based practices, and

5. Evaluated for its effect on teachers and students (NCLB, 2002).

Even with the focus on professional development that has been in place since the 2000s,

there is a range of professional development experiences, including one-day workshops, classes,

and coaching. The New Teacher Project (TNTP) found that most professional development does

not have the intended impact of improving teacher practice (2015). Coaching, however, stands

out as a way to influence teacher practice (Wood et al., 2016). This is important because

coaching, in general, is a common and increasingly practiced in schools (L’Allier, Elish-Piper, &

Bean, 2011). There are different methods of teacher coaching that have shown to be effective.

Methods of Teacher Coaching

There are various models of teacher coaching, including supervisory, side-by-side,

remote coaching, and multi-level. Each one provides a different level of interaction between the

coach and teacher, but all provide the same focus on observation, feedback, and reflection

around a focus practice or behavior.

Peer Coaching

Peer coaching occurs when teachers are provided with observation, feedback, and

coaching by a fellow teacher. The instruction may also involve modeling a focus practice as in a

2
study that engaged teachers in peer coaching around teacher conducted shared reading with think

aloud. Compared to teachers in the control group who did not receive coaching, teachers who

worked with a peer coach changed their practice around think-alouds, which resulted in an

improvement in student comprehension (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011). An important aspect of the

peer coaching approach was the trust relationships established and maintained by teachers during

the coaching work.

Side-by-Side Coaching

Side-by-side coaching occurs when a coach provides in the moment feedback that is

directly connected to a focus practice (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010). Side by side coaching is

characterized by being led by another staff member, and provides an opportunity to learn

together, reflection, cooperation, and a relationship that aligns the coach and teacher as equals

(Akhavan, 2015).

Side by side coaching is often led by another teacher or staff member and may involve

co-teaching the lesson to model implementation of the focus practice. After side by side

coaching a meeting provides for feedback, strengths, and weaknesses. This type of coaching has

been shown to be important to support teachers’ use of newly learned strategies (Kretlow et al.,

2011), has demonstrated positive impacts on student learning (Fisher et al., 2011) and is

positively received by teachers (Akhavan, 2015).

Remote Coaching

Coaching can also occur remotely through the use of technology, such as web cams and

online chat platforms. In remote or virtual coaching, a coach observes a teacher remotely through

a video feed and provides either immediate feedback through a “bug-in-ear” device (e.g.,

Almendarez et al., 2012) or through a follow-up conversation (e.g., Vernon-Faegans, Keinz,

3
Amendum, Ginsberg, Wood, & Bock, 2012). Specifically, video-conferencing has been effective

when implemented alongside an evidence-based practice (Amendum, Vernon-Faegens, &

Ginsberg, 2011; Ruble, McGrew, Toland, Dalrymple, & June, 2013; Vernan-Faegans et al.,

2012).

For example, Targeted Reading Instruction, a reading intervention that uses one-on-one

instructional reading skill lessons has teacher coaching as part of the intervention. Virtual or in-

person coaching is used to provide feedback and problem solve around student concerns

(Vernon-Faegans et al., 2012). Using this method, students who receive the intervention scored

higher on reading skills than those that do not (Amendum et al., 2011; Vernon-Faegans et al.,

2012).

In another study, when teachers of students with autism were coached in the evidence-

based practice, Collaborative Model of Prompting Competence and Success (COMPASS),

teachers who received coaching either face-to-face or online demonstrated greater fidelity to the

practice than the control group (Ruble et al., 2013). Furthermore, students demonstrated greater

goal attainment in the three target domains (communication, social skills, and independence)

with large effect sizes for both the in person group (ES = 1.41) and the web based coaching

group (ES = 1.12), suggesting that results can be achieved through either in person or online

coaching.

Differentiating Professional Development: Multilevel Coaching

Multilevel Coaching is coaching provided within a model of Multi-tiered System of

Supports (e.g., Response To Intervention) that provides professional development with follow up

supervisory coaching or side-by-side coaching for teachers to support full implementation

(Simonsen et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2016). Within this model, teachers are provided with an

4
initial professional development (e.g., a one-time workshop). Then, based on their ability to

implement the focus practice, teachers are provided with coaching (Schnorr, 2013; Simonsen,

Macsuga-Gage, Briere, Freeman, Myers, Scott, & Sugai, 2014).

One study that examined teacher fidelity found that when teachers were provided with

varying levels of professional development (in-service, supervisory coaching, and side-by-side

coaching) based on the teacher’s initial treatment integrity of an instructional practice, not all

teachers required coaching to produce positive changes in their practice (Schnorr, 2013). The

focus of the professional development, including coaching, is to support teachers until they are

all working at an acceptable level of fidelity, which may include providing some teachers with

more coaching than others (Schnorr, 2013; Simonsen et al., 2014). In this model, teachers are

provided with an initial training and their treatment integrity is recorded, if the teacher is not

delivering the instruction at a high enough level of integrity, then they receive coaching until

they reach the optimal level of integrity, which requires varying amounts of coaching depending

on the teacher’s starting point and rate of learning.

Research on Coaching

Coaching has an established and growing research foundation including meta-analysis of

research that brings multiple research studies together.

In one review, Kretlow and Bartholomew (2010) reviewed 13 studies conducted between

1989 and 2009 that involved teacher coaching. The review focused on 13 studies that specifically

measured change in teacher practice using quantitative measures. The studies included 110

elementary-level teachers that received coaching (41 general and 69 special education teachers).

All the studies incorporated a measure of teaching accuracy related to an evidence-based

practice. All 13 studies found that the coaching increased the accuracy of teacher practice. Eight

5
studies reported student outcomes, and of those, only three reported a positive change in student

performance based on coaching provided. A lack of change in student performance may be

because the studies were limited in length and it would take more time to see a change in student

performance. Also, the student performance outcomes were limited (e.g., spelling tests, IEP goal

completion) which may have contributed to the limited change in student performance.

In a recent meta-analysis, Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan (2018) examined 66 studies that

involved teacher coaching across the grades (PreK-grade 12) and that had a causal design, such

as a random controlled trial, or that included teachers who were and were not coached so that a

comparison could be drawn. The studies also examined the effects of coaching on instruction and

student achievement. The researchers combined the results from the studies for an effect size of

0.49 on instruction and 0.18 on student achievement (the effect size is a way to show the

difference between two groups, the smaller the effect size, the smaller the difference between

groups that received, in this case, coaching and the group that did not). These effects were found

for content-specific coaching, not for general coaching. And, coaching was equally effective

across grade levels and for virtual compared to in-person coaching. (However, data provided for

virtual coaching were less reliable.) In addition, they found that coaching must be provided in

high doses to be effective.

Together, these reviews (Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010) support the

use of coaching overall with a focus on content and that were intensive, or provided in high

doses.

The Impact of Coaching on Teacher Practice and Student Outcomes

Teacher coaching has been shown to have an impact on teacher practice. In one study,

teacher coaching had an impact on instruction in reading comprehension with a moderate effect

6
size (0.64), meaning that teachers who received coaching delivered reading instruction that was

much more aligned with the focus practice than teachers who did not (Sailors & Price, 2010).

Coaching has also had an impact on the classroom environment. In a study that focused

on coaching teachers in Head Start programs, teachers improved in their classroom environment

(e.g., the quality of the writing area) but not in their interactions (e.g., interactions that support

language; Neuman & Wright, 2010; Powell et al., 2010). This indicates that teachers may change

lower level behaviors, or those that require a one-time shift, like organizing a lesson, faster than

higher level behaviors, or those that require processes and higher order skills, like questioning.

Furthermore, providing sustained coaching over time has shown to improve teacher

practice, particularly when teachers have a low level of implementation fidelity when they use a

new practice. In a study that trained teachers in a universal classroom management intervention

(Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management system) with ongoing coaching, teachers who

started with lower levels of fidelity of implementation received more coaching and demonstrated

an increase in fidelity over time. In comparison, teachers who started with higher levels of

fidelity but received less coaching demonstrated a decrease in implementation fidelity over time.

This supports the practice of maintaining coaching with all teachers to support high levels of

fidelity (Reinke et al., 2013).

Teacher practice can be improved through coaching (Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow &

Bartholomew, 2010), which is important because professional development on the whole does

not always produce the intended changes (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). However, though coaching

has a strong impact on teacher behaviors in the classroom, studies indicate smaller effects (0.18;

Kraft et al., 2018) on the impact of teacher coaching on student achievement. The hypothesis that

7
improving teacher fidelity of evidence based practices will influence student achievement

outcomes is a focus of future research.

Implications for Practice

First, coaching must be implemented well to see the results found in research.

Kretlow and Bartholomew (2010) identified critical aspects of coaching that produced

changes in teacher practice:

1. Teachers were involved in a highly engaging initial training that incorporated

modeling and small group practice.

2. Teachers received follow up observations that were repeated and frequent. The

number of observations ranged from two to daily for multiple weeks. This is key

because teachers are not regularly observed after initial training (Yoon et al., 2007).

3. Teachers received specific feedback that incorporated individualized observation data

and self-evaluation.

Kraft et al. (2018) identified qualities of effective coaching. It provides:

1. Individualized support, or coaching was provided through one-on-one coaching sessions,

2. Teachers received intensive support with regular interactions (every two weeks),

3. Coaching was sustained over an extended period of time, such as a school year,

4. Teachers were coached on practices that they implemented in their own classrooms, and

5. Coaching focused on specific skills.

Considerations for Implementation

Teacher coaching is a method of adult learning, so efforts should be focused on

implementing teacher coaching programs that are focused on teachers as adult learners. To that

end, coaches should be able to:

8
 1. Focus on data to support instruction,

2. Demonstrate adult learning practices to mirror classroom practice,

3. Construct and apply knowledge and skills in classroom contexts,

4. Focus on teacher content knowledge and leadership,

5. Connect and align with the larger system, and

6. Engage in data-driven decision making (measure, document, reflect, and adjust;

Annenburg Institute for School Reform, 2004).

To be effective, Grabacz, Lannie, Jeffrey-Pearsall, and Truckenmiller (2015) identified

that coaches should:

1. Set clear goals for the coaching that provide teachers with an understanding of the

outcomes for the coaching work,

2. Model skills and provide teachers with opportunities to practice skills outside of the

classroom (behavioral rehearsal) and within the classroom context,

3. Provide feedback on skills either in the moment through bug-in-ear technology or hand

signals, or immediately afterwards,

4. Provide effective feedback that is timely, concrete, and specific (Veenman & Denneson,

2001), and

5. Provide reinforcement and encouragement as teachers develop skill.

In their study of teachers that implemented a questioning technique in the classroom,

specifically Question-the-Author (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kugan, 1997), Matsumura,

Garnier, and Spybrook (2012) identified aspects of their model that may contribute to positive

results:

1. The coach had a clear role in the classroom and that role was well understood,

9
 2. The coaches received extensive training, and

3. The focus strategy had a strong evidence base.

From this, it would be important to choose a focus practice that is an evidence-based practice or

one that has a strong research base, and provide strong coaching around that practice.

Planning coaching as professional development necessitates identifying coaches. In a

survey of teachers who had received coaching, Akhavan (2015) identified characteristics of

effective coaches:

1. They had strong people skills and developed good working relationships with the

teachers they worked with,

2. They focused on teacher development,

3. They had time to be available to each teacher, and

4. They were able to help teachers use data to plan instruction.

Finally, as school leaders make decisions around how to allocate resources, it is

important to keep in mind that not all teachers may require intensive coaching. Providing multi-

level coaching based on a teacher’s level of implementation may help maximize resources while

producing the same results in teacher implementation (Simonson eta al., 2014; Wood et al.,

2016).

Need for Future Research in Teacher Development

The primary need in research on coaching is research that connects teacher coaching

efforts to improvements in student performance (Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow & Bartholomew,

2010), which requires research that draws a causal connection between coaching and student

performance (Borko, 2004; Yoon et al., 2007).

10
 While changes in teacher practice are an established outcome from coaching, the level of

treatment integrity on student performance is another area for further development. Specifically,

studies, like those on multi-level coaching, that focused on improving teacher treatment integrity,

often focused more on advancing teacher practice from low to high integrity may produce

different results than when a high level of integrity is followed by a decrease in integrity. Future

research that examines how teachers implement evidence-based practices over time and how the

level of treatment integrity impacts student performance

Finally, there are questions around the type of coaching, the dosage, and the interactions

that occur during coaching that influence student outcomes that can help inform coach practice

(Wood et al., 2016).

Cost/Benefit of Teacher Coaching Compared to Professional Development

The cost of coaching will vary depending on the district and goals (e.g., the cost of an on-

site staff coach will differ from a one-time project-based coach). One study (Knight, 2012)

attempted to define the cost of coaching. The study found an average cost-per-teacher for

coaching across three schools to range from $3,620 to $5,220, a cost that is six to 12 times more

expensive than traditional professional development. However, considering that teachers do not

generally use practices that are taught through one-time in-service sessions (Farkas, Johnson, &

Duffett, 2003) it may be worth the extra cost to influence teacher practice.

Conclusion

Teacher coaching is one way to improve teacher practice, specifically related to

evidence-based practices. When incorporated thoughtfully into a professional development

strategy, coaching can provide the intensive support that teachers need to deepen their

knowledge of a practice and improve their ability to implement it in the classroom.

11
12
 References

Akhavan, N. (2015). Coaching side by side: One-on-one collaboration creates caring, connected

teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 36, 34-37.

Almendarez, M. B., Zigmond, N., Hamilton, R., Lemons, C., Lyon, S., McKeown, M., Rock, M.

(2012). Pushing the horizons of student teacher supervision: Can a bug-in-ear system be

an effective plug-and-play tool for a novice electronic coach to use in student teacher

supervision? ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Faegans, L. V., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a

technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. The Elementary

School Journal, 112, 107-131.

Annenburg Institute for School Reform. (2004). Instructional Coaching: Professional

development strategies that improve instruction. Retrieved from:

http://www.annenberginstitute.org/publications/professional-development-strategies-

professional-learning-communitiesinstructional-coac

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kugan, L. (1997). Questioning the Author:

An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Bethune, K. S., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Effects of coaching on teachers’ use of function-based

interventions for students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 36(2), 97-114.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3–15.

Chetty, R., Freidman, J. N., & Rockhoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers:

13
 Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. (Working Paper 17699).

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015).

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Stand by me: What teachers say about unions,

merit pay, and other professional matters. New York: Public Agenda.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011). Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves

comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. The Teacher Educator,

46(3), 231-243

Garbacz, S. A., Lannie, A. L., Jeffery-Pearsall, J. L., & Truckenmiller, A. J. (2015). Strategies

for effective classroom coaching. Preventing School Failure, 59(4), 263-273.

Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S.(2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta

Kappan. doi: 10.1177003172170909000709

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Knight, D. S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education

Finance, 38(1), 52-80.

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and

achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research,

88, 547-588.

Kretlow, A. G., & Bartholomew, C. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of

evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education,

33, 279-299.

14
Kretlow, A. G., Cooke, N. L., & Wood, C. L. (2012). Using in-service and coaching to increase

teachers’ accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 33,

348-361.

Kretlow, A. G., Wood, C. L., & Cooke, N. L. (2011). Using in-service and coaching to increase

kindergarten teachers' accurate delivery of group instructional units. The Journal of

Special Education, 44, 234-246.

L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2011). What matters for elementary literacy

coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement.

The Reading Teacher, 63, 544-554. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.7.2

Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H.E., Spybrook, J. (2012). The effect of content-focused coaching on

the quality of classroom text discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 214-228.

Menzies, H. M, Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From

research to practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.

Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early

childhood educators: A mixed-methods study of coursework and coaching. Elementary

School Journal, 11, 63-86.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early

literacy professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299-312.

Raney, P., & Robbins, P. (1989). Professional growth and support through peer coaching.

Educational Leadership, 35(6), 35-38.

Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Newcomer, L. (2014). Using coaching to support

15
 teacher implementation of classroom-based interventions. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 23, 150-167.

Ruble, L. A., McGrew, J. H., Toland, M. D., Dalrymple, N. J., & Jung, L. (2013). A randomized

controlled trial of COMPASS web-based and face-to-face teacher coaching in autism.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 566-572.

Sailors, M., & Price, L. (2010). Professional development for cognitive reading strategy

instruction. Elementary School Journal, 110, 301-323.

Schnorr, C. I. (2013). Effects of multilevel support on first-grade teachers’ use of research-based

strategies during beginning reading instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

TNTP. (2015). The Mirage: Confronting the truth about our quest for teacher development.

Retrieved from: https://tntp.org/publications/view/the-mirage-confronting-the-truth-

about-our-quest-for-teacher-development

Simonson, B., Macsuga-Gage, A. S., Briere, D. E., Freeman, J., Myers, D., Scott, T. M., &

Sugai, G. (2014). Multitiered support framework for teachers’ classroom-management

practices: Overview and case study of building the triangle for teachers. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 179-190.

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development:

2000. (National Center for Education Statistics Report No. 2001-088). Washington, DC:

Author.

Veenman, S, & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 385–417.

Vernan-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Amendum, S., Ginsberg, M., Wood, T., & Bock, A. (2012).

16
 Targeted reading intervention: A coaching model to help classroom teachers with

struggling readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 102-114.

Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2006). Making the case for evidence- based policy. In V. Buysse

& P. W. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood field (pp. 117–

159). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

Wood, C. L., Goodnight, C. I., Bethune, K. S., Preston, A. I., Cleaver, S. L. (2016). Role of

professional development and multi-level coaching in promoting evidence-based practice

in education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14, 159-170.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the

evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues

and Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation

and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from:

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf

17

View publication stats