The Effect of

Instructional
Coaching on Teacher
Efficacy
In Farmington Public Schools

Matt Golusin and

Kathrine Olenczuk
Page 1
Research Team

Matthew Golusin Kathrine Olenczuk

Assistant Principal Literacy Coach
David Ellis Academy West Farmington Public Schools
mgolusin@deaschools.com kathrine.olenczuk@fpsk12.net

Page 2
1. Introduction to the Study
Background
Research Questions

Page 3
Background - Farmington
● 9 Elementary Schools, 3 Middle Schools, 3 High Schools
● 9, 630 Students; 586 Teachers
● 4 Early Literacy Coaches, 2 Elementary Math Coaches (since 2017/18 School Year)

Page 4
Research Questions
QUESTION #1
● How does instructional coaching affect teacher efficacy?

QUESTION #2
● Which coaching activities have the biggest effect on teacher efficacy?

QUESTION #3
● What actions of school principals strengthen or diminish an instructional coach’s ability to positively
impact teacher efficacy?

Page 5
2. Method of Study
Selection of Subjects
Research Design
Instruments

Page 6
Selection of Subjects/
Research Design
Sample of Convenience
● All teachers in district who received coaching during the 2019 SY
● All Instructional Coaches
● All Administrators who had coaching support in their building

Research Design
● Received approval and consent from district in March
● Participants received survey on April 8, 2019. Had one month to complete.

Page 7
Description of Instruments

Surveys
● Teacher Survey
○ 30 Questions
○ 23 Likert, 4 Multiple Choice, 3 Open Ended
● Coach Survey
○ 24 Questions
○ 20 Likert, 4 Open Ended
● Administrator Survey
○ 9 Likert, 5 Open Ended
● Stakeholders had opportunity to preview questions and provide feedback prior to distribution

Page 8
3. Results of the Study
Teacher Survey
Coach Survey
Administrator Survey

Page 9
Table 4.1 Coaching Activities that Teachers Find Most Helpful (Rank Ordered)
Teacher Survey Results
(45% Participation)

Page 10
Table 4.2 Farmington Teachers’ Perceptions About Coaching
Teacher Survey Results Cont’d
(45% Participation)

Page 11
 Teacher Survey Results
(45% Participation)
What do you enjoy about coaching?

● Collaborative Planning and Problem-solving

● Supportive Think Partner

How could the coaching program be improved?

● Full-time coach available in each building

● Time provided for coaching

● Intentional planning and check-ins with coach

Page 12
Table 4.3 Farmington Coaches Perceptions About Coaching
Coach Survey Results
(100% Participation)

Page 13
Table 4.4 Positive Responses About Coaching from Farmington Coaches
Coach Survey Results Con’t.
(100% Participation)

Page 14
 Administrator Survey Results
(100% Participation)
● All principals reported use of instructional coaching has resulted in:

○ Improved teaching practice.

○ Improved student performance.

○ Increased teacher reflection.

○ Want to continue coaching program at school.

Page 15
Administrator Survey Results
(100% Participation)
How District/Administration can continue support of coaching program

● Majority of Principals reported need for coaching program to:

○ Meet with coaches regularly to discuss building and/or specific teacher needs.

○ Dedicate one coach to every building.

○ District providing time for coaches to meet with teachers regularly.

○ Encouraging more teachers to participate in the program.

Page 16
4. Conclusions & Recommendations
Conclusions
Recommendations
Implications for Future Research

Page 17
Conclusions
1. All three stakeholders (Teachers, Coaches, and Administrators) had positive
reviews of the coaching program in Farmington Public Schools.

a. Strong impact on teacher efficacy

i. Teacher - 89%
ii. Coach - 100%
iii.Administrator - 100%

b. Built upon strong relational trust

c. Reinforces research conducted

Page 18
Conclusions Con’t.
2. Coaches and Teachers top teaching strategies:
a. Co-Analyzing Data
i. Teacher Perception 86.2% - Coach Perception 83.4%

b. Facilitating Lab Classrooms/Modeling

i. Teacher Perception 79.3% - Coach Perception 83.4%

c. Co-Planning Interventions
i. Teacher Perception 75.8% - Coach Perception 66.7%

d. Feedback
i. Teacher Perception 86.2% - Coach Perception 50%
Page 19
Conclusions Con’t.
3. Disconnect between perceptions of whether or not the role of the coach had been clearly
communicated.

a. Teacher Perception
i. Administrator communicated role - 96.6%
ii. The role of coach has been clearly defined - 93.1%

b. Coach Perception
i. I have a clear understanding of my role - 100%
ii. Administrator has communicated role to teachers- 33%
iii. Teachers have clear understanding of my role - 0%

c. Administrator Perception
i. Role has been defined by district administrators - 75%

Page 20
Recommendations

➢ Coaching should continue as one option for embedded professional development

➢ Provide additional coaches: 1 per building would be ideal
➢ Provide additional time for coaching
➢ Clearly define roles/responsibilities of coaches
➢ Building positive relationships among teachers, coaches and principals is key
➢ Collaboration and reflective problem-solving should be center of coaching cycles
➢ Building administrators should be play active role in advocating for coaching program
➢ Provide literacy and math coaching to all grades K-5

Page 21
Implications for Future Research

● How many teachers receive coaching in Farmington annually and how does the efficacy of those
teachers compare with the efficacy of those who have not worked with a coach?
● What are the positive effects of having a full time coach in a school, as opposed to sharing a coach
across multiple buildings?
● How do principals support coaching in Farmington and what is the correlation between high levels
of principal support and the number of teachers that work with a coach?
● What is the effect of the coaching program in Farmington on overall student achievement in literacy
over a 3-5 year period?

Page 22
Questions or additional information?

Matthew Golusin Kathrine Olenczuk

mgolusin@deaschools.com kathrine.olenczuk@fpsk12.net

Page 23