School Leader Perceptions: Coaching Tool and Process

Abstract

This study extends previous work and builds upon the use of a prescribed coaching tool in an effort to build the capacity of school leaders in the role of instructional coaches. By using a reflective interview process and structured protocol, the authors present findings to suggest administrators need more intentional training to strengthen their role as instructional leaders. The results were organized under three themes: (a) instructional leadership growth, (b) teacher growth, and (c) professional conversations. Historically, minimal training that utilizes explicit tools and strategies to strengthen administrator’s roles as instructional leaders has been provided.

Keywords

instructional leadership instructional coaching reflective practice instructional supervision inquiry supervision

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed tremendous gains in understanding the complex role of the school leader, with research focused on a principal’s primary function as the instructional leader (Houchens, Stewart, & Jennings, 2017; Seashore-Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011; Wallace Foundation, 2013). In conjunction with findings of the leader’s impact on student achievement (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2009; Wallace Foundation, 2013) has come an increased call for accountability and evidence of student learning. Implementation of the Common Core State Standards has clarified learning outcomes focused on the depth and breadth of content knowledge and its application. As a result, the need for instructional coaching has increased; districts and schools are responsible for providing support to coach teachers. Shrinking educational funding has forced schools to provide in-house teacher coaching, with a variety of campus administrators enlisted in this role; this expanded and focused function of the instructional leader requires a repertoire of coaching strategies. While the school leader’s direct involvement to support instruction is imperative, a gap exists in how leaders are trained for and practice this coaching role.

This study extends previous work (Damore & Mulvey, 2009; Kapustka & Damore, 2012; Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017) and builds on the use of a teacher coaching tool in an effort to develop the capacity of a diverse group of school leaders in their role as instructional coaches. By using a reflective interview process and a prescribed coaching protocol, the authors present findings to suggest that experiences with these tools can strengthen the instructional coaching experience. Historically, limited training that utilizes explicit tools and strategies has been provided, and we believe this to be critical to a leader’s success, particularly at a time when school leaders are asked to perform a variety of roles and functions. While earlier studies examined impacts on teacher and student improvement, this study focused on the experiences and perceptions of the school leaders who used the protocol.

Conceptual Framework and Research Question

Earlier work by researchers was grounded in critical, collaborative inquiry (Clark, 1999) and inquiry-based supervision (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007) for the purpose of school improvement, specifically, teacher and student growth (Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017). Critical, collaborative inquiry is the combining of study, or theory, with action, to promote school improvement, with a specific commitment to uniting educators to “think together about their underlying interests and ideologies” toward the ultimate goal of creating quality educational experiences for all students (Clark, 1999, p. 213). Earlier findings were also situated in the broader context of complex school communities, teacher coaching, and the nuances of a particular institution, primarily elementary schools (Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017). Our research led us to present our coaching tool as a process to enable a school leader to guide teachers to articulate, self-reflect, and develop goals and actions to improve their classroom practices (Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017; Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2017).

After extensive data analysis and literature review, we have added a “theory of practice” grounded in the work of Houchens et al. (2017) with origins in Argyis and Schon (1974). Houchens et al. (2017) posit a theory of practice for school leaders to improve their instructional leadership role, viewing this role with openness and shifting their paradigm with coaching experience and reflection. A coaching framework affords improving instructional leadership and, overall, professional effectiveness through self-reflection and subsequent change in practice. Theories of practice are described as mental maps forcing the instructional leader to examine their own beliefs, assumptions, and strategies (Houchens et al., 2017, p. 35) in order to shift their thinking about support for teacher improvement. The concept of double loop learning is used to describe the ability of a principal to question assumptions and strategies as they experience coaching. The proposed coaching model includes a framework that relies on a structure of reflective dialogue between coach and teacher to promote professional effectiveness (Houchens et al., 2017, p. 34).

While earlier studies by the authors (one former principal and one former administrator) focused on student teachers and examined the impacts on teachers and student learning, this study examines the use of the coaching tool by instructional leaders, including principals, heads of schools, and directors. The following research question framed the study: How do school leaders perceive a semistructured coaching process and protocol used in their role as instructional coaches?

Background and Review of Literature

The school leader’s role has evolved as important evidence points to the principal as having the second greatest impact on student learning (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Wallace Foundation, 2013). Clearly, the principal’s primary and most critical responsibility is to serve as the “instructional leader.” The role is further described as “leadership for learning,” with attention to four specific dimensions connected to this responsibility: Values leadership, leadership focus, context for leadership, and sources of leadership frame this role (Hallinger, 2011). In further delineating these dimensions as they connect to the multifaceted work of the school leader, Hallinger describes this model as a “wide-angle lens for viewing the contribution that leadership makes to school improvement and student learning” (Hallinger, 2011, p. 127). Values leadership emphasizes the role of values as leaders protect what is important with regard to a school’s culture and core beliefs. Leadership focus underscores the connection of the leader to learning, via vision and goals, academic structures, and processes and people. Through clearly defined goals, staffing, and resource allocation, the school leader provides the foundations for optimal learning. Context for leadership emphasizes how school context influences the leader’s work. Moving away from a one-size-fits-all set of effective leadership strategies, leaders must adapt their styles to changing needs of schools and align with the context or setting at a given time. Sharing leadership further connects a school’s context with the process of including stakeholders in decision-making. Hallinger’s model draws attention to the multiple avenues for school leaders to support learning, placing value on what is important, supporting efforts through personnel and resources, or gauging levels of decision-making others can engage in. A meta-analysis suggests the principal’s support for and participation in the professional learning of staff produced the largest effect size on learning outcomes of students (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). “When principals are able to maintain an instructional focus in these key areas, it does pay off” (Hallinger, 2011, p. 134). In addition, the leader’s work should be focused on building the school’s capacity for improvement, through the professional learning of teachers.

School leaders, other than principals and heads of schools, are also delegated the role of instructional coaching of teachers. These can include directors of learning and others who serve in an administrative role. These instructional leaders may not have received university-based instructional supervision preparation or substantial professional development on coaching teachers. Research on the work of instructional coaches indicates the importance of trust, honesty, and openness within a teaching-coaching relationship (Knight, 2007, 2011). The role of the instructional coach is to develop a nonjudgmental relationship with the teacher and provide constructive feedback as a peer rather than a superior (Hall & Simeral, 2008). In contrast, these school leaders are generally also tasked with evaluation of the teacher and providing summative feedback. When the school leader, regardless of title, steps into the role of instructional coach, he or she must recognize the differing responsibilities with this role and adapt or adjust accordingly (Nolan & Hoover, 2008).

Training School Leaders

School leaders experience various forms of support and training for leading instruction. A review of the literature in this area that relates specifically to principals indicates less than a third of principals nationally receive mentoring and at least a day of professional development for their own growth (Southern Regional Education Board [SREB], 2007). Additional findings suggest school leaders placed a higher value on supervision and mentoring support when it emphasized their role as instructional leaders (Johnston, Kaufman, & Thompson, 2015). An examination of principal professional learning finds most principals participated in workshops as attendees, among the least effective form of support (Guskey, 1994). In contrast, activities that can effectively improve performance, such as job-embedded coaching, were less available to school leaders in general, with support often limited to new principals (Alvoid & Black, 2014; DeMonte & Pennington, 2014; Fink & Resnick, 2001). Fewer than a third of principals indicated working in settings that offered a combination of all three types of on-the-job support-supervision, mentoring, and professional development. It is suggested that a gap exists in the research regarding the knowledge, skills, and abilities that principals need to be successful (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Principals need specific training in supervision and evaluation and also in coaching teachers.

In a similar way, other school leaders who assume teacher-coaching responsibilities receive a diverse range of professional support and training in instructional leadership, with similar perceptions of the impact of this training by principals. Researchers reported that assistant principals believe they need more training with their career trajectory to become instructional leaders in addition to managerial tasks (Barrett, Shoha, & Okilwa, 2017). Most school leaders serve in this dual role of evaluating and, at the same time, being responsible to observe and provide feedback to teachers. They face the same challenges as the principal when assuming the role of supervisor and evaluator (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016; Williamson, 2012).

Coaching Models

Coaching, in its simplest form, involves helping others get better (Noble, 2012). While educational coaching has most frequently been studied in the context of coaching teachers (Knight, 2009), leadership coaching as a support for new principals has become more common. In an improvement from the SREB (2007) study results mentioned earlier, a later national study indicated 48% of the principals surveyed were coached in the past 5 years (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). Positive perceptions resulted from principals about coaching’s impact on improving their practice, with almost 72% perceiving student achievement growth due to the coaching (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). Coaching models rely on the structure of reflective dialogue between coach and client (Aguilar, 2013). In addition, coaching meets the criteria for effective high-quality professional development; it involves active learning, “opportunities for teachers to observe, receive feedback, analyze student work as opposed to passively listening to lectures” (Desimone & Pak, 2017, p. 34; Houchens et al., 2017). Argyis and Schon’s (1974) reflective structures suggest powerful tools for promoting professional effectiveness. A direct link exists from coaching principals and the impact it has on their instructional leadership and their own professional effectiveness (Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Houchens et al., 2017). A positive association occurs between principal participation in formal mentoring and coaching and principal effectiveness when compared with university course work or other principal supports and training, such as attending professional learning sessions (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Coaching provides principals with real-world experience, making natural theory-to-practice links (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004). “Although research points toward coaching teachers as one of the higher-leverage instructional activities in which a principal can engage, it is also an endeavor that principals often feel least comfortable and qualified undertaking” (Alvoid & Black, 2014, p. 13).

Findings that highlight best practices in instructional coaching indicate it should be nonevaluative and job-embedded (Hanover Research Report, 2015). The most powerful coaching models are those that look not only at a teacher’s instructional practices, but also at the beliefs they hold about students, their learning, and about themselves (Aguilar, 2013). Such inquiry-based or cognitive coaching models develop the teacher’s cognitive skills of reflection through discourse and application of knowledge.

Connections to the Evaluation and Supervision of Teachers

While models of teacher evaluation are designed to ensure all children are learning with schools meeting short- and long-term goals, evaluation processes generally lead to rehiring and retention decisions. In contrast, supervision as a process focuses on improving teacher competence or teacher practice. “The purpose of supervision is to help increase the opportunity and capacity of schools to contribute more effectively to students’ academic success” (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2007, p. 7). Evaluation and supervision are different and have become mistakenly interchangeable as a result of school structure, accountability pressures, and limited resources. “The purpose [of supervision] is to promote teacher growth beyond the teacher’s current level of performance” (Nolan & Hoover, 2008, p. 8). Darling-Hammond (2014) examines the dichotomy that continues, expressing concern that little evidence exists of progress to train principals as “instructional leaders and evaluators of teaching” (p. 1). “Measuring teachers and developing teachers are different purposes with different implications” (Marzano, 2012, p. 16).

Best practices of effective evaluation systems honor principles of adult learning (Hanover Research Report, 2015). Teachers need to participate in the decision-making with their learning; professional development is most effective when it is “job embedded.” Adults are responsible for their own learning, they desire collaboration (Gregson & Sturko, 2007). Utilizing the Danielson evaluation model (Danielson Group, 2015), common in schools today, the role of the 21st-century principal is confounded with the conflicting demands of evaluating a teacher’s effectiveness while, generally, at the same time, facilitating the development and improvement of teaching practices, in other words, instructional coaching. In an attempt to serve both goals of evaluation and supervision, the current system may hinder the ability and capacity of the school administrator to provide teachers with feedback that will result in development of reflective, inquiry-based practice they can use to build and improve classroom performance.

Inquiry-Based Supervision

Few evaluative models include opportunities for teachers and their respective administrators to set goals for teaching and learning, much less provide regular, useful feedback to help guide teachers to improve instructional practices (Darling-Hammond, 2014). Researchers advocate for systems of teacher evaluation that support models of continuous improvement, and growth opportunities for teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Mielke & Frontier, 2012). The post-observation conference is the “best opportunity to engage teachers in thinking through how they could strengthen their practice” (Danielson, 2012, p. 35). Employing teacher inquiry resulting in self-reflection has a better chance of teachers owning, studying, and improving their classroom practices. The supervision process, unlike the typical evaluative process, sets up the necessary milieu to establish a trusting relationship between teacher and administrator, necessary to nurture and sustain dialogue and inquiry about teaching (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Real-time conversations that follow an observation provide the best opportunity to engage the teacher in reflective thinking about improvement of practice (Danielson, 2012).

Current evaluation tools may not result in meaningful conversations with teachers. In the interest and requirement of following all teacher evaluation procedures, the process and meaningful conversations might not be occurring. Are the right questions being posed? Are there additional opportunities for coaching and conversation (Gabriel & Allington, 2012)? Principals and school leaders are not readily prepared to conduct a post-observation conference (Danielson, 2012). Even if principals do have a clear definition of good teaching, are they ill-prepared for conducting the conference itself, and in such a way as to result in meaningful feedback for the teacher to build upon? Research shows that teachers want feedback; they are best engaged when they are active participants in the process (Danielson, 2012). Honoring teachers as self-directed learners capable of creating improvement goals may appear in the literature, but becomes more challenging to implement (Mielke & Frontier, 2012). School leaders may need to shift their mindset, give less prescriptive feedback, and be more open-minded to an inquiry-based approach to helping teachers create and find the solutions for improving their practices.

Tomlinson (2012) describes an ideal evaluation from the teacher perspective. The numerous characteristics she identifies align well to the purpose and intention of supervisory practices, content, and process, such as,

Watch me work . . . provide feedback that’s personalized to me; deliver formative feedback and support for growth before summative evaluation, and acknowledge my progress when it’s merited, pointing out my next developmental step. (p. 88)

The description continues:

My ideal evaluator would help to build a mutual relationship built on mutual desire for growth in meaningful work, clear learning targets, formative assessment, and support for taking the next steps, recognition of a teacher’s strength, and persistent feedback calibrated to that teacher’s level of development. (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 89)

Inquiry-based supervision engages administrator and teacher in conversations about instruction and how it can be improved. This study of classroom practice is an alternative to top-down educator professional learning through its approach and its result. These methods combined with effective supervision focused on student learning outcomes can guide school leaders to engage teachers in participatory learning, moving toward the acquisition and practices of methods found effective in classrooms (Palmisano, 2013). Reflective, inquiry-based processes, where administrators and teachers can dialogue about classroom practices, are intentional to guide teachers to articulate, self-reflect, develop, and grow professionally (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007).

Research Method

The study is a naturalistic, holistic, multi-case study research design (Bogdan & Bilkin, 2007; Glesne, 2011; Zainal, 2007). This allows the researchers to understand the phenomena of school leaders’ using a prescribed coaching protocol and process, and find meaning in the complex “lived experiences” of school leaders as instructional coaches. A multi-case study approach enhanced the researchers’ capabilities to examine real-life events and the phenomena therein through exploration of the participants’ experiences. Through explanatory building, results were clarified, strengthened, and the researchers determined data appropriateness for the research question and theoretical connections (Zainal, 2007). In the researchers’ earlier studies, the research questions examined impacts on teacher and student improvement, but, with this study, turned to the experiences and perceptions of the school leaders who used the coaching protocol.

The theoretical underpinning for this study is grounded in a phenomenological approach of research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 2011). An interpretive, ethnographic approach allowed us to begin to explain discoveries, interactions, and learnings about a social phenomenon when variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure (Glesne, 2011). Through semistructured interviews and field notes, we were able to listen to the school leaders’ voices, learning and reflecting about their perceptions and interpretations of the use of a prescribed coaching protocol. The process was designed and developed in earlier work by the researchers (Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017).

We approached this work from the perspective of university-based faculty working within school communities founded on principles of critical, collaborative inquiry (Clark, 1999). Critical, collaborative inquiry is the combining of study, or theory, with action, to promote school improvement, with a specific commitment to uniting educators to “think together about their underlying interests and ideologies” (Clark, 1999, p. 213) toward the ultimate goal of creating quality educational experiences for all students. We strive to present the data and analysis, but also to situate these findings in the broader context of complex school communities, teacher coaching, and the nuances of particular institutions, not just in elementary schools. The two researchers are university-based teacher-educators as well as previous administrators of both public and private schools. Both researchers work extensively both locally and nationally coaching principals and instructional leaders. This study was contextualized in earlier work (Damore & Kapustka, 2007; Damore, Kapustka, & McDevitt, 2011; Kapustka & Damore, 2012; Rieckhoff & Damore, 2017) that utilizes the coaching tool with student teachers in a professional development school, university–P-12 partnership.

Selection of Participants

The participant selection used was convenience sampling to provide rich cases to study the phenomena of instructional coaching by school leaders (Glesne, 2011). The research opportunity was presented by the authors at several educational conferences locally and nationally throughout 2015 to 2017. Conference attendees (administrators were targeted) were invited to contact the researchers for further information. Those administrators who contacted the researchers were eventually invited to participate, purposefully chosen once the researchers felt confident the commitment for the research project existed. School and leadership capacity is paramount to improvement of academic achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

For this study, the researchers interviewed 10 school leaders about their use of the coaching tool process. The first cohort participated during the course of the 2016-2017 academic year, and the second cohort during 2017-2018. Participants were informed of the research project and provided written consent. Consent was also obtained from the teachers who participated in the post-observation conferences. For data analysis, the two cohorts have been combined, with training and data collection procedures standardized for all cohort participants.

The participants represented five schools: two public and three private; all P-8th grade; one on the East Coast, two in the Midwest, and two in a Western state. The sample was not intended to be representative of the populations of school leaders where the research was conducted. The study includes public and private school leaders, all having teacher evaluation and supervision roles within their respective schools. Participants’ range of titles such as principal, director, head of school, associate head of school was based upon the type of school setting, district or network configuration, and varying resources. Only one school leader served as a principal in a traditional setting. Two served in a public charter school, and seven school leaders worked in private schools. Their years of experience as school administrators ranged from less than 3 years to more than 20 years. Their professional development and/or formal training in teacher coaching were varied, ranging from possessing state principal preparation licensure to just the formality of their principal delegating the responsibility of teacher coaching to them. Table 1 provides demographic data on each of the participants and their schools.

Table 1.

Demographics of Participants.

School (pseudonym)	School leader (pseudonym)	School leadership role	Yrs. experience administration/supervision	School type/enrollment
Madison	A	Head of School	>20	Private, 500 plus students
Madison	B	Associate Head of School	>5
Madison	C	Elementary Program Director	>5
Madison	D	Early Childhood Program Director	<3
Washington	E	Head of School	>10	Private, 151 students
Jefferson	F	Principal	>5	Public, 451 students
Lincoln	G	Lower Elementary Program Director	<3	Public Charter, 200 students
Lincoln	H	Upper Elementary Program Director	>10
Adams	I	Early Childhood Program Director	>3	Private, 300 plus students
Adams	J	Middle School Director	>3

Coaching Protocol and Process—Design and Development

The coaching tool “protocol” is a semistructured, post-observation set of eight questions used by an instructional leader in coaching a teacher. The questions, which utilize evidence-based components of good teaching and learning along with solicitation of critical inquiry-based teacher responses, enable the supervisor/coach to guide teachers to articulate, self-reflect, and improve their classroom practices (Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007). Interview questions are based on commonly identified best practices in teaching and learning (Danielson, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Hanover Research Report, 2015; Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium [INTASC], 1992; Marzano, 2012; Minnici, 2014; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS], 1987).

Designed and utilized several years earlier (Kapustka & Damore, 2012) with more than 50 student teachers at a large, urban university, the coaching protocol was developed in response to the researchers’ participatory experiences in a university-based Professional Development School (PDS) model, as well as review of the literature that criticizes teacher education programs’ ineffectiveness in preparation of future teachers (Levine, 2006). This coaching process was designed with the intentionality of improving the supervisory relationship with the teacher (preservice or inservice), resulting in improved teacher performance. The specific components of effective teaching and learning were embedded strategically into the questions of the interview protocol, and include (a) curriculum planning/delivery of instruction, (b) differentiation of instruction, (c) evidence of student learning, (d) adult communication and collaboration, and (e) professionalism/reflective practices (INTASC, 1992; NBPTS, 1987). An updated review of the literature (Danielson, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Hanover Research Report, 2015; Marzano, 2012; Minnici, 2014) indicated the structured protocol and questions were still relevant. These tools aligned content with Danielson’s four domains of teaching (Danielson Group, 2015) and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Five Core Competencies (NCATE, 2001). In the past few years, the increased need for teacher collaboration with colleagues, and significant correlations between evaluation and continued professional learning has been highlighted for good teaching practices. Collaboration, development of professional culture, deep knowledge base in teaching, integration with professional development, and teacher responsiveness to differentiated needs are identified by Simon (2012) and validate further the strength of the interview protocol process, components, and teacher interview questions.

To illustrate the use of the protocol questions presented to the teacher by the instructional coach, we highlight one here for purposes of the reader’s rudimentary understanding of the intentionality of the protocol. The questions are used following a classroom observation and elicit the teacher’s (inservice or preservice) reflection on his or her lesson. One question on the protocol, “What did your students learn today and how do you know?” was guided by earlier research questions to ascertain how student teachers would articulate their understanding of student learning and examine the interview protocol influence (Kapustka & Damore, 2012). With student teachers, reflection as a practice emerged as an overarching theme. The interview analysis identified areas of focus in the student teachers’ responses to the question about student learning that included content knowledge and teacher practices. We also noticed that, over time, the student teachers began to anticipate the question, and we noted, in later interviews, that they often stated some version of “I knew you were going to ask that” when we queried them about student learning after the lesson. As students progressed through their student teaching placement, they became more confident in their responses and were able to articulate how they knew their students were learning. With other questions on the protocol, we saw similar patterns with student teachers thinking, articulating, and engaging in self-inquiry and reflection about curriculum delivery, differentiation, communication/collaboration, and professionalism/reflective practice. Like Hollins (2011), we recognized the value of providing the practice of inquiry and opportunity for the student teacher to make connections between influences of practice on student learning.

In the past few years, the researchers transitioned from their original roles as instructional supervisors of student teachers using the coaching protocol themselves, to training school leaders to use the process with practicing teachers. This study explores instructional leaders’ use and perceptions of the protocol’s impact on their instructional coaching practices.

Intervention and Data Collection

The researchers trained the school leader “coaches” to use the coaching protocol, scheduling onsite visits at the participants’ respective schools. For training purposes, a classroom observation and post-observation conference were scheduled with a consenting teacher. Together, the researcher and instructional coach observed the classroom. A conference followed, with the researcher asking the teacher the interview questions from the coaching protocol with the coach observing the process. The coach was then asked to conduct a minimum of three additional observations and post-observation conferences during the academic year.

For data collection, coach participant interviews were scheduled at the end of the academic year. All interviews were conducted and recorded by the researchers using a semistructured interview set of questions. The questions ranged from strengths, value, areas for improvement, and ease of the coaching tool protocol and process (see the Appendix). The questions were utilized to ask the participants about the use of the protocol used in earlier studies with supervisors of student teachers. We believed that it would continue to provide evidence for this study’s research question. This data analysis was focused more specifically, using the conceptual framework, on the school leader’s perceptions of their participation and professional growth, as well as their participating teacher(s).

Data Analysis

As the researchers combed through, extensively, and consolidated the data to find themes, they sought synergistic relationships between theory and the participant’s responses. Interview responses were transcribed across the 10 cases; more than 65 pages were coded and analyzed. Coding is defined as a “progressive process of sorting and defining . . . scraps of collected data . . . that are applicable to your research purpose” (Glesne, 2011, p. 194). She also elaborates further to explain the “means to the end” of coding, the organization of a theoretical framework from which the researcher can explain and interpret their data.

Based on the updated literature review, the conceptual framework of “theories of practice,” as well as the original theoretical underpinnings of critical, collaborative inquiry and inquiry-based supervision, eight (8) preset codes were defined: protocol characteristics, teacher practice, teacher growth, student achievement, supervisory feedback, inquiry, collaboration, and supervision versus evaluation. Emerging codes prompted more exploration and connection to the research question and theory. With continued data analysis and dialogue between the two researchers, the clustering process ensued, producing primary codes: administrative practices, teacher practice, and supervisory feedback. The primary codes were revisited one more time, and, this time, secondary codes emerged that still appeared too extensive for the scope of this study. With a final round of review, the following three themes eventually crystallized: (a) instructional leadership growth, (b) teacher growth, and (c) professional conversations. The themes are grounded in the literature and the ongoing, persistent debriefing between the two researchers. We define professional conversations as supported in the literature that honors adult principles of learning and teachers desirous of supervisory feedback but want to be able to share their own views and perspectives and collaborate with their coach (Danielson, 2012; Gabriel & Allington, 2012; Johnston et al., 2015; Tomlinson, 2012).

Trustworthiness and Methodological Limitations

The concept of trustworthiness is presented by Glesne (2011) as a way to increase the credibility of your data and findings, “trust the culture and check out your hunches” (p. 49). The researchers have acknowledged the principles of prolonged engagement and persistent observation by extending the study over 1 school year and interviews after the coaches’ prolonged use of the protocol. In addition, the two investigators debriefed continuously, and attempted member checking on the interviews.

Limitations exist in participants’ self-reporting, and our interpretation, as we listen to the school leaders’ perceptions. We acknowledge that, although the study involves five schools, and 10 coaches, it is still a small sample. Other limitations may include school type, public versus private, school size, and systems in place to support leadership capacity and training. Variance in the roles of the instructional leaders, their authority, expertise, experience, and the experience of the participating teachers may also have limitations. An additional consideration is that of the administrator bias that emerges as these school leaders assume a dual role of teacher evaluation and supervision. School leaders who have been responsible for evaluating teachers may have a preconceived notion about the teacher, based on prior knowledge of the teacher’s performance, and willingness to take recommendations to improve teaching practice. Finally, this study was limited to 1 academic year of data collection.

Clarification of bias is important for this study. We, as researchers, acknowledge that we are participatory researchers and, as such, bias may occur. Our professional goals are focused on school and leadership improvement, primarily early childhood to 12th grade in both public and private schools. With the interviews, there are always limitations because the participants may behave and answer in a manner that they expect the researchers to expect (Glesne, 2011; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). We kept these limitations in mind as we shared our findings. The following analysis and discussion section provides narrative and elaboration on the identified themes with illustrative quotes from the coach participants.

Findings and Discussion

Multiple-case analysis suggests that the school leader participants found the coaching protocol and process beneficial to themselves in the alteration of their assumptions, beliefs, and practice of instructional coaching (Houchens et al., 2017). Across the cases, perceptions yielded deeper thinking, reflection, and collaboration between coach and teacher to improve teaching and learning. Our findings suggest school leaders who used the prescribed, coaching protocol indicated it was a beneficial post-observation instrument. Using a set of semistructured, interview questions after a classroom observation yielded positive results. The data represent a theoretical, rich narrative that describes and explores the research question. Writing up the analysis, we chose Golden-Biddle and Locke’s (2006) approach where respondents’ quotations and comments are integrated with researchers’ interpretations and connections to the literature. The findings contribute to a growing body of research that examines how school leaders learn to coach teachers effectively (Hallinger, 2011).

Instructional Leadership Growth

Significant, across the cases, was almost a unanimous agreement about the coaching protocol and processes’ positive impact on the participating school leaders’ own attitudes, capabilities, and learnings as instructional coaches. Throughout their interviews, the coaches described growth and change in beliefs, assumptions, and practices regarding their supervisory approaches. Just as Houchens et al. (2017) used “theories of practice” to describe how principals can improve their instructional leadership and, thus, professional practice, through “double looping,” these school leader participants began to reflect and question their own assumptions and beliefs about their own practices.

I don’t know that I went in with a mindset of what do I see going well? Because you are always thinking, ok, what are some things that need to be worked on? I need to find those. That’s the feedback I need to give somebody. And it is easy to get lost in that. With the coaching protocol it’s just that, you are coaching and you are supporting the person regardless of whether the approaches or behaviors you saw in the classroom were positive or negative. (School Leader J)

I think this made you go in more open. I don’t know how to explain that. I think that the reliance of the questions is confidence building. I felt like these questions were equally for me [valuable] as they were for them. (School Leader A)

Yes, it absolutely did improve my capability to provide observations with feedback. It is a psychologically gentle way and open way to collaborate. (School Leader H)

Improved skills and dispositions of effective supervisory practice (Nolan & Hoover, 2008) were acknowledged by most participants. Participants indicated a change in the manner in which they will give feedback to teachers, acknowledging that by listening first, they will not sound as punitive or corrective. In addition, participants indicated teachers articulated some of their supervisory concerns before they had an opportunity to mention them; this, in turn, made the conversation more comfortable, allowed them to probe more deeply into issues, make suggestions more diplomatically and respectfully, and offer a collaborative stance. Robinson et al. (2008) reported that by coaches participating in the teachers’ learning, the influence of leadership on student outcomes is improved. Danielson (2012) expressed concern about principals being ill-prepared for post-observation conferences. Here, the instructional coaches were reporting increased coaching confidence:

It really also encourages my listening. I tend to be such a problem solver. I want to leap in right away and solve the problem. But that’s not always effective for deeper engagement. So, this protocol encourages a deeper engagement on both parts on the coach and the person who is being mentored. (School Leader G)

Instructional coaches should be respectful of teachers listening first, not passing judgment too quickly (Hanover Research Report, 2015). Trust should be valued in school relationships and their impact on school culture and student learning (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Allowing this collaborative process engages a trusting relationship to emerge over time.

The majority of participants agreed that following a classroom observation, having a prescripted set of questions for regular, repetitive use, was extremely valuable to ask teachers about their practices. This process appeared to shift assumptions leaders held about their own coaching and supervisory skills, as well as change their behavior as instructional leaders (Houchens et al., 2017). Several indicated the questions contributed to establishing greater trust (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015), a new level of comfort, and, thus, creating a more productive relationship, a strategic partnership, getting professional conversations started, and creating greater supervisory credibility with teachers.

I think for me, shifting my mind set in the observations from coming up with critiques of what was going on to make things better. I think that when you are observing it is easy to grab ahold of one thing and get stuck on it and be like, Wow, I really got to tell them they got to stop doing this. And the coaching protocol gave me a more reflective mindset before I went in, which I think helped. (School Leader J)

I would definitely continue to use it. I mean, I feel like I didn’t know how badly in need of a good tool I was. And I really liked this one. It has opened up a lot of opportunities for examining students with the teachers. (School Leader E)

As stated earlier, the findings reflected growth and change as reported by the instructional coaches. They began to question their own beliefs, assumptions, and practices, and began to alter their behavior, which they believed had a positive impact on the relationships with their teachers, the reflective process, and impact on student learning. The changes in their dispositions and practice are supported by Houchens et al.’s (2017) “theories of practice” describing how principals can improve their professional practice through the reflective process. Previously identified literature further supplements and supports the value of theories of practice through leadership learning, effective supervisory feedback, and instructional coaching practices (Hallinger, 2011; Tomlinson, 2012; Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007).

Teacher Professional Growth and Improvement of Practices

Across the cases, participant agreement was significant that the process contributed positively to teacher growth. The coaches described their perceptions of growth with their teachers as demonstrating more deep thinking about meeting the needs of students with special needs, differentiated instruction, student collaboration, and knowing their students better to design instruction more effectively. As supported by Yendol-Hoppey and Dana (2017), the perception of teacher reflection was strong among the coaches, who found positive outcomes of the reflective, inquiry-based process where administrator and teacher can have meaningful conversations to improve classroom practice.

The success was them thinking about it, having that reflective piece, adding the layer of them questioning why they are doing something. I think that was the biggest takeaway in my opinion, is not just doing something because you’ve always done it in a certain way. (School Leader D)

For a PE teacher, for instance, he had some really mindful reflections on how to better structure the environment, usually has a group of twenty to thirty kids in there and he needs to split them up into different stations and it’s a lot to manage, he was coming up with ideas on how to be more effective in that space. I found that I really didn’t need to say much, that he was already processing. (School Leader J)

It gets them talking and answering their own questions to push that next envelope. I like them to have an opportunity to take a little more ownership. (School Leader I)

She’s paying attention and working to improve. She comes back excited; I tried this and we worked through this. She wants to branch out and be the leader on her team. (School Leader H)

When asked which question was critical in the interview, the question, “Tell me about what happened in the classroom today versus what you planned,” was regarded as the one having most impact. The coaches described this question as opening the door for teachers to feel comfort in self-reflection, thinking about changing their practice with very little discomfort, or feeling the coach was punitive in asking the question.

I love the answers I got from teachers with that one because I think, you know, they come in, and they assume that you’re in there to judge them and it puts that question right back to them before you ever say anything. (School Leader F)

Several participants indicated that they found it challenging to get through all of the questions in the protocol, especially the ones at the end that ask about the teacher’s thinking about professional growth. But when one school leader coach asked her teacher the question, “In what ways do you use your experiences to continue your professional growth?” she appeared to marvel at the teacher’s level of year-end reflection, thinking about the next year, and ready to apply what she had learned as a result of the interview questions posed over the year.

She was really reflecting on how she could make the next year better. And she was able to, she had obviously already been thinking about what to do better next time or what to do differently next time and it allowed me to ask her some open-ended questions, that helped her get to more of the meat of what she wanted to do differently. And in the middle of it she kind of stopped and she got out paper and pen and started writing down the notes of what she wanted to do for the next year. [They] were really great ideas that turned this observation into something that seemed a little more profound for her, that she could actually articulate and then move forward with. (School Leader G)

These responses resonated well with Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) advocacy for educative coaching where new teachers engaged in an inquiry-based approach to develop deep understanding of teaching and learning so changes in practice are based on critical thinking rather than short-term strategies. The post-observation conference may be the best opportunity to engage teachers in reflective practice (Danielson, 2012).

Professional Conversations

The researchers have begun to supplement the traditional concepts of supervisory feedback to one of a definition of a more contemporary “professional conversation” between instructional coach and teacher. Professional conversations comprise more than talking inside the schoolhouse, but rather focus on improvement of practice, refinement of teacher skills, and reflection on next steps or areas for future growth. In keeping with Danielson’s (2012) role for school leaders, “We must, as instructional leaders, give attention to interactive skills of professional conversation, inviting teachers to reflect and strengthen their practice according to the instructional framework they use” (p. 4). This opportunity is labeled as a “real-time” conversation to engage teachers in reflection about their practice and is in marked contrast to scheduled professional development on various topics that may or not be relevant at the time of presentation (Danielson, 2012). This approach honors the principles of adult learners (Gregson & Sturko, 2007), such as engaging the teacher as an active, collaborative participant in the supervisory process. Researchers also reported that teachers need to feel autonomous as decision-makers in their own learning, which further validates the need for professional conversation or dialogue, not just traditional one-way supervisory or evaluative feedback by school administrators (Hanover Research Report, 2015).

Research on effective supervisory practices well supports the concept of professional conversations. A definition of supervision supports the humanistic qualities of supporting the professional growth of the teacher, including establishing trust to commence and sustain a dialogue of inquiry into practices of teaching (Nolan & Hoover, 2008). Darling-Hammond (2014) advocates for useful and regular feedback, which may account for the responses of the instructional coaches when it comes to describing conversations with their teachers.

My experience to date is really been a lot of goal-setting, and then doing observing and then just saying three things I liked and one thing I was concerned about. And there was never a dialogue. And so, I think it’s the dialogue that is important. (School Leader A)

They assume that you’re in there to judge them and it puts that question right back to them before you ever say anything, like, what went well? What didn’t go well? You know, what went how you expected it to go? And the conversations that came out of that I liked quite a bit. (School Leader F)

What I like about this is that the questions make people think; both sides think a lot about what they saw. And didn’t see. And have a conversation about that. (School Leader C)

Several participants talked about their ability to begin to engage and listen better to their teachers, and many perceived that the process allowed them to have a genuine dialogue with the teacher.

I find the strength is that it allows them to talk. And it allows you to listen. And it allows you to be reflective internally before you say something. (School Leader G)

Personally, I got more value out of the conversations. I think, again, because there is a tool [the scripted questions]. With our district protocol for teacher evaluations we have a rubric to use, but there’s no generic-guiding questions to start that conversation off. (School Leader F)

Almost all of the participants appreciated, and found valuable, the semistructured, generic questions used during the post-observation conference. Researchers concluded that unless the right questions are posed to teachers, meaningful conversations might not be possible (Gabriel & Allington, 2012).

I like the idea of the repetitive questions [over the course of the year]. It’s nice to know what you’re going to be talking about. (School Leader B)

An essential question to consider is if principals know the right questions to ask of teachers (Gabriel & Allington, 2012). These coaches acknowledged that having prescribed, yet generic, repetitive, inquiry-based questions resulted in robust professional conversations.

The last question on the interview protocol with the school leaders was, “Would you continue to use the coaching tool protocol? Why or Why not?” All 10 participants, regardless of position or title, expressed interest in continuing to use the post-observation questions with teachers. They also indicated the desire to extend the protocol to more teachers because they expressed confidence in their ability to use the tool effectively.

I think it is really useful and I think if we can make it a part of our standard practice I think it would be extraordinarily helpful. (School Leader H)

I would like to continue to use it and move forward with it because it does really open up for conversation. And it does maintain the idea that not only are we striving to create lifelong learners but that we are lifelong learners. (School Leader G)

Yet, not all participants were in agreement about the feasibility of using such a process on a regular basis. A few only used the protocol 3 times and indicated that the school year did not allow for the fourth observation. Several identified a major limitation to using the questions: finding actual time to dedicate to such a process. Some wanted to decrease the number of questions, possibly use a partial list of the questions, and/or redesign teacher evaluation systems that better support more professional conversations with teachers.

Implications

The research question, how does a semistructured coaching interview protocol used by instructional coach and teacher align with best practices in instructional coaching? led to examination of literature about instructional leadership, supervision versus evaluation, coaching, and inquiry-based supervision. With extensive coding and analysis of interview transcripts, supported by field notes, salient themes emerged: instructional leadership growth, teacher growth, and professional conversations between instructional coach and teacher. Questions about the use of the coaching tool posed to school leaders, as instructional coaches, yielded positive perceptions; the coaching experience appeared to influence their beliefs and practices (Houchens et al., 2017). The participants reported increased self-reflection by both the coach and the teacher, and, possibly, an opportunity for high-quality professional conversation between the two. The issue of limitation of allocation of time for dialogue to produce teacher self-reflection and improvement of practices should not be overlooked by school administrators and districts.

The study’s results appear to continue to confirm earlier work with the coaching tool process (Kapustka & Damore, 2012). We found, as coaches ourselves at that time, significant value in the use of the coaching questions with a student teacher after a classroom observation. The value, again, is supported by the participants of this study. As in earlier work (Kapustka & Damore, 2012), we saw similar patterns as with this study’s school leader participants, across the cases, as they described their teachers’ thinking, articulating, and engaging in self-inquiry and reflection about curriculum delivery, differentiation, communication/collaboration, and professionalism/reflective practice. Like Hollins (2011), we acknowledge the value of inquiry- based supervision for the preservice as well as the practicing teacher. The research will continue to contribute to a growing body of research that examines how instructional leaders learn to coach teachers (Hallinger, 2018). To restate, and to add to the body of knowledge on teacher coaching, it is our assertion that these inquiry-based conversations led by a supervisory coach, who recognizes and values the process of self-reflection, for himself or herself and the teacher, are essential in the professional development of school leaders whose role is instructional coach.

Educational leadership researchers and authors have proposed numerous frameworks and conceptual road maps to guide instructional leaders in coaching teachers. Research suggests that effective coaching does influence student achievement positively (Kraft, Bazar, & Hogan, 2018). We presented “theories of practice” as a conceptual framework (Houchens et al., 2017), supplemented with research including leading to learn, effective inquiry-based supervisory practices, and instructional coaching practices (Hallinger, 2011; Tomlinson, 2012; Yendol-Hoppey & Dana, 2007) to frame participants’ responses about their use of a coaching process. What emerged were patterns, concepts, and benefits of such a process, which include focus on inquiry-based reflection as a professional development tool for both instructional leader and teacher, seeing supervision from a different lens, and yielding professional conversations between coach and teacher to improve instruction.

We will continue our research in the use of the coaching process that honors the principles of effective instructional leadership coaching, critical, collaborative inquiry, definitions of good teaching as well as supports toward a potential road map for reflective, inquiry-based professional conversations to lead educational leaders to engage and guide teachers to reflect and improve their instructional practices. The review of the literature on “theories of practice” has further enriched our understanding and theoretical framework to support the use of the “protocol” to promote effective supervisory and coaching practices. Training of school leaders, including the principal, head of school, or curriculum leader, or any who serve as instructional leaders in such an approach, is essential to the model. Leadership preparation programs must train candidates on the complexities of the dual roles of evaluator and coach and provide opportunities for field experiences and practice in these roles. Post-classroom observational feedback cannot be one-way and prescriptive, but must be meaningful, mutual, participatory, and afford opportunities for teachers to articulate, own, and improve teaching and learning. Current budget constraints on schools do not allow for full-time coaches and outside resources. As a result, the named instructional leader must have tools to enable these conversations to emerge.

The literature and research discussed in this article support not only the path of our specific strategies but can serve to inform and redirect some major thinking in current teacher evaluation systems. At present, significant interest in teacher evaluation exists with an opportunity to create effective supervisory models, potentially embedded in evaluation models. Current models need to be explored and researched further where inquiry-based questions exist to engage teachers to grow and develop as effective educators, where teaching and learning are highly connected. We must consider and honor the distinct differences and processes of evaluation and supervision.

We propose the use of best practices in instructional leaders and coaching with the utilization of classroom post-observation conferences that utilize theories of practice; honor principles of adult learning; and reflective, inquiry-based feedback based on recognized components of good teaching and learning. Time and space must be created for professional conversations to improve teacher practice, and, thus, student learning (Wiggins, & Damore, 2005).

The strategies can be applicable to school leaders of various roles in instructional coaching and for both practicing and preservice teachers. Regardless of the evaluation framework used by a school district, required by state mandate, or individual school, this instructional leadership strategy and teacher development model will honor the time-tested, theoretical underpinnings and humanistic purpose of supervision to improve teaching and learning.

For more information on the coaching tool, please contact Dr. Sharon Damore @sjdamore@aol.com or Dr. Barbara Rieckhoff at brieckho@depaul.edu.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sharon J. Damore

Author Biographies

Sharon J. Damore, adjunct faculty, Educational Leadership, DePaul University, is a former full-time faculty member and previous principal in public and private EC - 12 schools. She consults and publishes research in school leadership, coaching, development of collaborative, reflective practices in school improvement and Montessori education.

Barbara Stacy Rieckhoff is an associate professor of Educational Leadership at DePaul University and former K-12 principal. Research interests include mentoring and coaching school leaders and developing school-based partnerships.

References

Aguilar

(2013). The art of coaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alvoid

Black

(2014). The changing role of the principal: How high achieving districts are recalibrating school leadership. Washington, DC: Center for Academic Progress.

Argyis

Schon

(1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barrett

Shoha

Okilwa

(2017). Assistant principals’ perceptions of meaningful mentoring and professional development opportunities. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6, 285-301.

Bogdan

Biklen

(2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to the theories and models (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Clark

R. W.

(1999). Effective professional development schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Damore

Mulvey

. (2009, February). Teacher education across the lifespan: How a professional development school network improves preservice preparation and enhances teacher quality: How is a unique method of guided reflection in the PDS impacting the student teacher, and the rest of the triad (university supervisor and cooperating teacher). Paper Presented at the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Conference, Chicago, IL.

Damore

S. J.

Kapustka

K. M.

(2007). Using research to inform fledgling professional development schools: Data-driven decision making. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 2-12.

Damore

S. J.

Kapustka

K. M.

McDevitt

(2011). The urban professional development school network: Assessing the partnership’s impact on initial teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 46, 182-207.

10.

Danielson

(2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 79(3), 32-37.

11.

Danielson Group. (2015). Available from www.danielsongroup.org

12.

Darling-Hammond

(2014). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as a part of a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 38, 4-13.

13.

DeMonte

Pennington

(2014). Professional support for principals is essential for strong teacher-evaluation systems. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

14.

Desimone

Pak

(2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into Practice, 56, 3-12.

15.

Every Child Succeeds Act. (2009).

16.

Every Child Succeeds Act. (2015).

17.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). Helping novices to learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 17-31.

18.

Fink

Resnick

(2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 598-610.

19.

Gabriel

Allington

(2012). The MET project: The wrong 45-million-dollar question. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 44-49.

20.

Glesne

(2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

21.

Glesne

Peshkin

(1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

22.

Golden-Biddle

Locke

(2006). Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Gregson

Sturko

(2007). Teachers as adult learners. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 36, 1-18.

24.

Grissom

Harrington

. (2010) Investing in Administrator Efficacy: An Examination of Professional Development as a Tool for Enhancing Principal Effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 583-612.

25.

Guskey

(1994). Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. Journal of Staff Development, 15, 42-50.

26.

Hall

Simeral

(2008). Building teachers’ capacity for success: A collaborative approach for coaches and school leaders. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

27.

Hallinger

(2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 125-142.

28.

Hallinger

(2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46, 5-24.

29.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.

30.

Hanover Research Report. (2015). Best practices in instructional coaching (Prepared for Iowa Area Education Agencies). Arlington, VA: Author.

31.

Hollins

E. R.

(2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 395-407.

32.

Hopkins-Thompson

(2000). Colleagues helping colleagues: Mentoring and coaching. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 29-36.

33.

Houchens

G. W.

Stewart

T. A.

Jennings

(2017). Enhancing instructional leadership through collaborative coaching: A multi-case study. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6, 34-49.

34.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standard for licensing classroom teachers and specialists in the arts: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

35.

Johnston

Kaufman

Thompson

(2015). Support for instructional leadership. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

36.

Kapustka

K. M.

Damore

S. J

. (2012, April). “How did your students learn? How do you know?” Helping student teachers articulate student learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia.

37.

Knight

(2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

38.

Knight

(2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 18-22.

39.

Knight

(Ed.). (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

40.

Kraft

Bazar

Hogan

(2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88, 547-588.

41.

Kraft

Gilmour

(2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principal views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 711-753.

42.

Leithwood

Seashore-Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning (Report). New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

43.

Leithwood

Seashore-Louis

Walhstom

Anderson

. (2009). How successful leadership influences student learning: The second installment of a longer story. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

. (Eds.), Second handbook of educational change (pp. 611–629). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

44.

Levine

(2006). Educating school teachers. The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm

45.

Marzano

R. J.

(2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-19.

46.

Mielke

Frontier

(2012). Keeping improvement in mind. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 10-13.

47.

Minnici

(2014). The mind shift in teacher evaluation: Where we stand—And where we need to go. American Educator, 38, 22-26.

48.

Murphy

Vriesenga

(2004). Research on school leadership preparation in the United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26, 183-195.

49.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1987). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from https://www.nbpts.org

50.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Available from www.ncate.org

51.

Noble

(2012). Conflict management coaching. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: AC Riley Communication.

52.

Nolan

Jr. Hoover

L. A.

(2008). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

53.

Palmisano

M. J.

(2013). Taking inquiry to scale: An alternative to traditional approaches to education reform. Urbana, IL: NCTE/National Center for Literacy Education.

54.

Rieckhoff

B. S.

Damore

S. J.

(2017). Beyond Charlotte: Reflection for continuous improvement of practice. Journal of Practitioner Research, 2, 1-14.

55.

Robinson

Lloyd

C. A.

Rowe

(2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.

56.

Seashore-Louis

Wahlstrom

(2011). Principals as culture leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 52-56.

57.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

Starratt

R. J.

(2007). Supervision: A redefinition (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

58.

Simon

(2012). A tale of two districts. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 58-63.

59.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren’t born—They’re mentored. Retrieved from https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/good-principals-arent-born-theyre-mentored.aspx

60.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2012). The evaluation of my dreams. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 88-89.

61.

Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

(2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 66-92.

62.

Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Pages/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.aspx

63.

Wiggins

K. C.

Damore

S. J.

(2005). “Survivors” or “friends”?: A framework effective of collaboration. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 49-56.

64.

Williamson

(2012). Coaching teachers: An important principal role (research into practice). Fullerton, CA: Educational Partnerships Report.

65.

Wise

Cavazos

(2017). Leadership coaching for principals: A national study. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25, 223-245.

66.

Yendol-Hoppey

Dana

(2007). The reflective educator’s guide to mentoring: Strengthening practice through knowledge, story and metaphor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

67.

Zainal

(2007). Case study as a research method. Journal Kemanusiaan, 9, 1-6.