Fostering,Tailoring,Negotiating: The Complexities of Collaborative Coaching in Schools Under Pressure to Improve

Abstract

Recent research has examined the influential role coaches may play in supporting teachers’ collective capacity building for instructional improvement. While emerging research is promising, much remains to be learned about collaborative approaches to coaching, particularly in schools with the greatest opportunity gaps. We draw on extensive longitudinal qualitative data to explore a collaborative approach to coaching in urban middle schools under pressure to improve math outcomes. Findings reveal key coaching strategies to promote teacher team capacity building, including fostering student-centered discussion and collaborative relationships, tailoring capacity-building opportunities to provide access for all teachers, and negotiating across teachers and leaders to support improvement efforts. This work was complicated by conflicting expectations between leaders and teachers as well as challenges with addressing teachers’ misconceptions about math content in group settings. These findings reflect the need for ongoing capacity building that supports coaches as they attend to group dynamics and accountability pressures.

Keywords

accountability case studies collaboration educational reform in-depth interviewing observational research qualitative research

Introduction

Amid widespread efforts to accelerate student learning, many schools and districts are focused on building teachers’ capacity to improve instruction, particularly in core subjects such as mathematics. School leaders and policymakers have long placed teacher collaboration at the center of such reform efforts to improve instruction (Datnow & Park, 2018; Stoll et al., 2006; Vangrieken et al., 2015). However, the depth of teachers’ opportunities to learn through collaboration is mediated by the expertise available within the group (Horn & Kane, 2015; Lockton, 2019). While studies demonstrate how coaches can serve as sources of expertise supporting teacher capacity building (Booker & Russell, 2022; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Gibbons & Cobb, 2016; Hanno, 2022; Matsumura et al., 2009), such research has traditionally focused on coaching with individual teachers (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). More recently, some scholars have documented coaches’ approaches to leading activities with groups of teachers (Gibbons & Cobb, 2017; Hopkins et al., 2018; Woulfin & Jones, 2018) and facilitating teachers’ collaborative interactions (Spillane et al., 2015).

While emerging research on collaborative approaches to coaching is promising, few studies are situated in schools under significant pressure to improve student achievement. Such schools are especially important to consider given persistent opportunity gaps across race and socioeconomic status in K–12 education (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Reardon, 2013; Sirin, 2005; Vanneman et al., 2009). A deeper understanding of collaborative coaching in these contexts may provide actionable insights to inform instructional improvement efforts. Focusing on math teacher teams in four racially and socioeconomically diverse urban middle schools, we draw on extensive qualitative data collected over four years to explore: What strategies support a collaborative approach to coaching in urban schools under significant pressure to improve? What challenges mediate collaborative coaching?

In this study, we draw on extensive longitudinal qualitative data collected between 2015–2019 to reveal the complexities of coaching for collective capacity building amid high-stakes accountability pressures. Findings illustrate how the coach helped to foster teacher teams’ discussions about student thinking and increase collaborative planning and reflection. While such outcomes are promising, the coach also navigated challenges associated with addressing teachers’ misconceptions about math content in group settings. Much of her work involved tailoring her approach to align with teachers’ needs and goals and negotiating across varied expectations between administrators and teacher teams. These findings reveal specific collaborative coaching strategies that helped to promote improvement and also shed light on the need for ongoing capacity building that supports coaches with attending to complex group dynamics and accountability pressures. Such insights are especially timely given the role coaching may play as a strategy to improve instruction and accelerate student learning (Blazar, 2020; Booker & Russell, 2022) and the proliferation of investments in coaching across states, districts, and schools (Woulfin et al., 2023).

Literature Review

For several decades, content-focused coaching has represented a pervasive strategy for promoting teacher professional learning (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Connor, 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Gibbons & Cobb, 2016; Woulfin & Rigby, 2017; Woulfin et al., 2023). Coaching is seen as a promising capacity-building approach since it embodies five key features of effective professional learning including active learning, a content focus, sustained duration, coherence, and collective participation (Desimone & Pak, 2017). Prior research reveals coaches can increase teachers’ access to content area expertise (Hopkins et al., 2013), challenge deficit frameworks (Gibbons et al., 2017), facilitate data use (Huguet et al., 2014), promote student achievement (Campbell & Malkus, 2011), and support teachers’ abilities to address instructional goals (Gardiner, 2012). In many districts, coaches are also part of the infrastructure for reform (Huguet et al., 2014; Woulfin & Jones, 2018), playing an important role in framing policy messages for teachers (Woulfin & Jones, 2018).

Coaching practice is highly contextualized, with different combinations of factors shaping coaches’ effectiveness across districts and schools. For example, sufficient time to meet and collaborate with teachers, as well as the presence of support from school leadership, can influence the coaching process (Gibbons & Cobb, 2016; Matsumura et al., 2009). Structures and policies established by district leaders also impact coaches’ ability to devote time to instructional improvement and the alignment of coaching with district priorities (Woulfin et al., 2023). In Hashim’s (2020) study, top-down hierarchies and organizational silos within the district influenced how coaches brokered information to teachers. Coaches must also navigate school and district-level power hierarchies, which tend to be heightened in schools that are underperforming and facing accountability concerns (Finnigan & Daly, 2012).

Complementing the literature on coaching, a robust body of scholarship outlines the benefits of teachers’ engagement in collaboration (Datnow & Park, 2018; Stoll et al., 2006; Vangrieken et al., 2015). These benefits include the development of supportive relationships and increased understanding of content and pedagogical approaches (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Studies also demonstrate a positive relationship between teachers’ engagement in collaboration and student achievement (Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Vescio et al., 2008). Importantly, teachers’ opportunities to learn and improve through collaboration are shaped by the availability of expertise within the team (Horn & Kane, 2015; Lockton, 2019; Weddle, 2020).

As with coaching, collaboration is also contextual. A teacher team’s understanding of policy messages and administrator expectations for their instruction as well as their collaboration, and their perception of the coherence and priority of these, shape the way they spend their time and even the degree to which they collaborate (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Characteristics of team members such as their level of content expertise (Horn & Kane, 2015) and capacity of collaborative inquiry and reflection support or constrain their work, as do asset/deficit frameworks and norms and relationships among teachers (Louie, 2016; Sutton & Shouse, 2018).

Recognizing the potential benefits of layering coaching onto collaboration to support teachers’ collective capacity building, an emerging body of work examines coaches’ work with teams of teachers (e.g., Gibbons & Cobb, 2017; Hopkins et al., 2018; Spillane et al. 2015). These studies document coaches’ successful efforts to lead capacity-building activities with groups of teachers (Gibbons & Cobb, 2017) and facilitate teachers’ collaborative interactions (Spillane et al., 2015). Research also reveals how collaborative approaches to coaching can contribute to changes in teachers’ classroom practices (Hopkins et al., 2018). While such research is promising, less is known about the challenges coaches face when supporting teams of teachers in high accountability contexts or strategies to effectively navigate these challenges over time.

Grounded in prior literature, Figure 1 outlines our conceptualization of the relationship between coaching, teacher capacity, and collaboration. Nested in school, district, and state contexts, a collaborative approach to coaching reflects a promising pathway for supporting teacher capacity building. To better understand how coaches can bridge collaboration and capacity building—particularly in schools with the greatest opportunity gaps, we draw on extensive qualitative data collected in urban schools under pressure to improve.

Figure 1.

Situating collaborative coaching in schools under pressure to improve.

Methods

This longitudinal qualitative case study is part of a four-year continuous improvement project aimed at building teacher teams’ capacity to improve math instruction through support from an instructional coach. We used case study methods because the boundaries between the phenomenon of interest (i.e., a collaborative approach to coaching) and the context were deeply intertwined (Yin, 2018). As is typical with case study research, we engaged in triangulation across data sources including 165 interviews with teachers, administrators, and the coach as well as 200 meeting observations (Miles et al., 2019; Yin, 2018). Each of these sources informed our understanding of coaching in urban schools under pressure to improve.

Study Context

This study is situated in four urban middle schools serving racially and socioeconomically diverse students. The coach working in these schools was hired through the improvement project to support the goal of improving middle school math instruction. She had extensive experience as a middle school math teacher and professional learning community (PLC) lead but had not worked in a coaching role. Thus, the improvement project arranged for her to receive support from an external expert in math coaching. She also participated in meetings with district coaches, enabling her to stay informed about district initiatives.

The coach worked with all math teacher teams across sixth through eighth grade at each of the schools (approximately 38 teachers each year) during their scheduled collaboration meetings as well as informally, with the ultimate aim of building the collective capacity of the teams through improving math instruction. Each school had time set aside for teachers’ collective work in grade-level teams, and teachers were expected to take advantage of these formal collaboration opportunities to examine student data and plan and reflect upon instruction. However, at the beginning of the study, such collaboration was infrequent in three of the schools and nonexistent in the fourth (teacher teams in this school never met during the first year).

Recognizing limited collaboration, the coach began organizing full-day, cross-school workshops for all teachers during the second year of the study to facilitate collaborative planning. The coach structured these sessions to focus on teachers’ current instructional planning goals. The quarterly workshops were typically day-long sessions that included an opportunity to explore a new instructional approach (e.g., a “rich mathematical task”) followed by time to plan within and across teams. A central focus of the coach’s work was facilitating a shift toward a more conceptual approach to teaching mathematics. This vision of instruction was designed to support students in generating new understandings, engaging in complex problem solving, and participating in discourse (e.g., Franke & Kazemi, 2001; Munter, 2014; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014).

Teachers’ perceptions of the coach are an important contextual factor to address. Prior research demonstrates that trusting relationships between teachers and coaches are essential (Mayer et al., 2015) and influence whether teachers will seek support from coaches (Gardiner, 2012). Across interviews, teachers consistently described trusting the coach as a source of helpful expertise. One teacher stated that the coach “really knows math” and others described her as “experienced” and “insightful.” Another framed the coach as having strong content knowledge, explaining “she has a higher level of mathematical understanding.” Teachers’ positive perceptions of the coach are important to acknowledge as they served as a foundation for the collaborative coaching strategies and interactions examined in the findings.

Setting and Data Collection

Recognizing that coaching and teacher collaboration are highly contextualized processes (Blazar, 2020; Weddle, 2022; Woulfin et al., 2023), our study is situated in urban middle schools under pressure to improve student achievement. The four middle schools included in this study ranged in size from 364 to 1092 students, serving students in grades six through eight. The schools primarily served Latinx students with smaller numbers of Black, Asian, white, Native American, and multiracial students. The majority of students at each school qualified for free- or reduced-price lunch. Each school also served populations of English learners ranging from 15%–40%. The schools consistently performed lower than their district’s average on their state’s math assessment, with proficiency rates ranging from 19 to 42% in the year prior to the study. Math teachers faced strong accountability pressures, as math is one of two subjects that teachers are held accountable for on the annual state assessment. Previous research in these schools revealed how pressure to improve math achievement shaped leaders’ expectations for teachers’ collective work, reflected by a strong focus on standardized test scores (Lockton et al., 2020).

Data for this in-depth qualitative study included interviews and observations collected over four years. All teachers (37–40 depending on the year), the four principals, and the coach were interviewed annually, resulting in a total of 165 interviews. All interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were semistructured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and included prompts for teachers to share their experiences related to collaboration, including reflections about the role and influence of the coach. We also prompted teachers to discuss instructional approaches used in their classrooms to promote student learning.

To more directly examine coaching and collaboration dynamics, we conducted observations of 185 teacher team meetings across the four schools¹ and 15 cross-school workshops led by the coach between August 2015 to June 2019, taking detailed field notes. Each observation was approximately one hour in length. When observing meetings, we noted the content of collaborative conversations, who led discussions, and the role of the coach in facilitating dialogue. We paid particular attention to how teachers talked about their practice and collaboration experiences. While informal interactions outside of meetings were not observed, these dynamics were often referenced during interviews.

Data Analysis

To analyze the interview and observation data, we began with a set of a priori codes grounded in literature informing this study. More specifically, we individually reviewed the literature cited in this study about instructional coaching, teacher collaboration, and the role of context and then collaboratively developed a list of a priori codes (e.g., use of meeting time, leaders’ expectations for collaboration, trust/tensions, and the coach’s influence on instruction). We then developed the six remaining codes by collaboratively reading and discussing a subset of interviews and observations. Examples of these emergent codes are: addressing misunderstanding in content and coach-district relationship. A full list of codes, definitions, and sample excerpts are included in the online appendix.

Once codes were finalized, we engaged in an iterative analysis process. To promote inter-rater reliability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), we started by jointly coding an interview. During this initial coding session, we discussed the meaning of codes and refined code definitions. We then coded a second interview separately and met to discuss any differences in coding. We repeated this process with each type of data until we reached agreement about code definitions and their application. Following the coding process, we reviewed the data both within and across codes to develop an analytic memo (Miles et al., 2019) outlining themes related to the coach’s collaborative approach to capacity building over time, including challenges she encountered each year. Tracking themes over time (e.g., teachers’ references to student thinking in discussions about instruction) helped us to identify shifts. This longitudinal analytic memo also enabled us to group the coach’s moves into three sets of strategies (fostering, tailoring, and negotiating) comprising her collaborative approach to coaching. To ensure accuracy and receive feedback, drafts of this paper were shared with the coach and district partners, and broader project findings were shared annually with teachers in the form of presentations.

Findings

Our analysis revealed several benefits and challenges of a collaborative approach to coaching in urban schools under pressure to improve. Specifically, findings reveal three strategies the coach employed to promote team capacity building: fostering student-centered discussion and collaborative relationships, tailoring capacity building opportunities to provide access for all teachers, and negotiating across teachers and leaders to support improvement efforts. While these efforts reflect the potential benefits of collaborative coaching, the coach also faced challenges with addressing teachers’ misconceptions about math content in group settings. Further, her work was complicated by persistent accountability pressures that shaped varied expectations between teachers and administrators. We expand on these themes in the following sections, highlighting how the coach worked to bridge teacher capacity building and collaboration in schools facing significant accountability pressures.

Fostering Conversations About Student Thinking

Across the four years studied, we observed a shift in teachers’ conversations about instruction taking place during collaboration meetings. During the first year of the project, teachers’ lesson-planning discussions were infrequent. When they did occur, such conversations rarely referenced student thinking or understanding. Instead, these early conversations tended to focus on the logistics of what to teach and when. Recognizing the potential for more student-centered discussions, the coach focused her work with teacher teams on exploring instructional approaches to promote students’ conceptual understanding of math topics. She regularly discussed the value of incorporating discussion opportunities into instruction and using manipulatives to support student learning. The coach also emphasized encouraging students’ “productive struggle” and reasoning as opposed to focusing on answers. Describing the coach’s influence on her teaching, one teacher explained, “[The coach] has really changed my thinking—let students struggle, there doesn’t always have to be answers to things.”

As teacher teams increasingly participated in capacity-building opportunities led by the coach, they had opportunities to engage in collaborative conversations addressing students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding. The field note below documenting an exchange from a grade-level collaboration meeting taking place during year three of the project exemplifies this shift:

Teachers are looking at student work on a quiz about modeling fractions.

Teacher 1: Something I would like to talk about is some of these irregular shapes (pointing to student work). This student understands that five-fifths is one whole, but they didn’t split the circle in five parts, they split it in four parts. What if they hadn’t cut it at all and shaded the whole thing? Would that deserve any points?

Teacher 2: Yes, because it does show that they know what one whole is.

Teacher 1: I was surprised by how many kids drew irregular shapes. I guess that can still be a “whole.”

Teacher 2: We also had a good conversation in my class about where some kids shaded. Because some shaded the right number, just not all in a row. And that is still right!

The teachers went on to identify students’ common areas of misunderstanding on the quiz. While this excerpt only includes one grade-level team, the discussion is similar to conversations we observed across schools during the third and fourth years of the project. Over time, teacher teams engaged in increased discussion about students’ thinking and understanding.

Fostering Collaborative Relationships

In addition to influencing teachers’ discussions about instruction, the coach also fostered their collaborative relationships over time. She did this primarily through leading cross-school workshops that provided new opportunities for teachers to co-plan and reflect with their own grade-level team as well as with teachers from other schools. These workshops were introduced in the second year of the study and were offered consistently in years three and four. Expressing appreciation for space to co-design lessons with her grade-level team, one teacher explained, “It is so useful . . . it is nice to have time for the whole team to sit and actually create something.”

When reflecting on the cross-school workshops, several teachers highlighted benefits from the opportunity to connect with other teachers. A teacher explained, “[The workshops] are the most incredible forms of professional development in that they provide you not only with content that is useful for your classroom, but an arena to work with other teachers where you can bounce ideas.” Another teacher described cross-school workshops facilitated by the coach as spaces to share ideas and “hear what others are struggling with,” providing opportunities for teachers to “support one another” within and across schools.

For many teachers, building relationships with colleagues across schools supported their professional learning beyond their school-level capacity building. One teacher explained, “I’ve grown a lot through the collaboration with the teachers here at our school, but through [the coach] I am able to collaborate with teachers from other schools and learn from them as well. I don’t think I would have grown as much if I was just in my own bubble.”

Teachers across all schools and grade levels described engagement in the quarterly cross-school workshops as beneficial, with several mentioning building new collegial relationships. For almost all teachers, quarterly engagement in day-long collaborative reflection and planning with their team was an increase in collective work. As explored in the following section, the impact on their collaborative relationships was positive but perhaps not influential enough to allow for difficult conversations about content knowledge.

Tailoring Capacity Building to Address Variation in Teachers’ Math Content Knowledge

Although the coach comfortably led collaborative discussions about new instructional approaches, she faced complexities related to addressing some teachers’ misconceptions about math content. During observations across the four years studied, the coach struggled to directly address gaps in content knowledge in collaborative settings. She described “tailoring” cross-school workshop discussions to align with teachers’ current levels of understanding, with the goal of fostering an inclusive space for all teachers. Importantly, teachers frequently referenced feeling welcome and comfortable engaging in the sessions. However, promoting the accessibility of collaborative conversations may have at times overshadowed the importance of supporting teachers’ development of strong content knowledge.

Teachers’ expertise varied across teams, and thus some teachers demonstrated misconceptions about math content during team meetings or workshops. The excerpt below is from a cross-school workshop facilitated by the coach. A group of teachers participated in an activity using a number line, and Teacher 1 struggled to compare the absolute values of −6/12ths and −7/12ths. All teachers present were responsible for teaching absolute value in their classes.

Teacher 1: The value is less, but the distance [from zero] is greater?

Teacher 2: To help, I might ask, “If you use 12 as your denominator, how many steps is six-twelfths away [from zero]?’

Teacher 1: 6 steps

Teacher 2: And how many steps for seven-twelfths?

Teacher 1: 7

Teacher 2: So it is farther from zero. Is that helpful?

Teacher 1: Kind of . . . am I wrong? I taught kindergarten [before middle school math.] I have never worked with negative fractions before.

Coach: So as we go on the number line left, are we getting bigger or smaller?

Teacher 1: Well, uhhh . . .

Teacher 3: Left is less!

Teacher 1: Ok . . .

Coach (encouragingly): This is exactly what the kids struggle with.

During the remainder of the discussion, Teacher 1 continued to struggle with determining and comparing the absolute value of the two negative fractions. A few teachers and the coach tried to provide more explanation about why −7/12th has a higher absolute value, but Teacher 1’s confusion was not resolved and the group eventually moved on.

At times, teachers expressed concerns about the potential impact of misconceptions such as the one illustrated previously on students’ opportunities to learn. One teacher explained that her team members were aware of a colleague’s gaps in content knowledge, but that the person had not been helped by school leaders. The teacher explained, “I’m just concerned about the kids. I saw their test scores, I saw their data, and to go from ‘proficient’ to ‘below basic’ means something is wrong in that classroom.” At this school and the others in the study, teachers and school leaders seemed unsure about how to approach addressing teachers’ gaps in content knowledge.

While the coach engaged in occasional individual lesson planning with teachers that may have allowed for more conversations about content knowledge, the bulk of her work focused on capacity building in groups. Reflecting on the pitfalls of this approach, the coach explained, “being one person supporting a team of teachers—not only at one site, but at four—it becomes, ‘where do you spend your time?’” Noting that her primary focus was on tailoring collaborative capacity-building opportunities to introduce new and relevant instructional approaches, she stated, “I can’t sit down and teach [individual teachers] all the math they need to know.”

In addition to time constraints, the multiyear nature of the coach’s role may have created pressure for her to maintain trusting working relationships with teachers, as continued improvement hinged on teachers’ willingness to engage. Previous research on collaborative, critical teacher discussions illustrates how “the risk of hurting one’s own or a colleague’s public image” can constrain opportunities to learn (Vedder-Weiss et al., 2019). Similarly, the coach acknowledged during interviews that she felt uncomfortable calling attention to teachers’ misconceptions about math content in group settings. This desire to maintain relationships—coupled with the lack of sustained collaborative cultures for most teams—may have disincentivized the coach from initiating conversations that could potentially embarrass teachers in front of one another. Thus, she tended to avoid direct discussion of individual gaps in content knowledge in collaborative settings.

Negotiating and Bridging Between Teachers and Administrators Amid Accountability Pressures

Consistent with many schools labeled “underperforming” in the United States, administrators in the schools studied placed heavy emphasis on improving standardized test scores. These leaders understandably felt the need to follow district directives, which were often created in response to state accountability pressures. The coach explained “[school leaders] do whatever the district tells them to do.” Facing pervasive pressure to improve test scores, three of the four leaders suggested which teacher teams the coach should work closely with and how. Leaders’ priorities were based on their perceptions of which teams needed the most support. While in some ways this helped the coach direct her focus, some teachers were frustrated by administrators’ efforts to direct the collaborative coaching process. Unsurprisingly, trying to please both administrators and teachers proved to be challenging for the coach, given diverging expectations.

Offering cross-school workshops helped to ensure the coach had opportunities to interact with all teams. However, her work was still mediated by persistent accountability pressure as she supported teachers’ efforts to improve their math instruction. This pressure to improve students’ test scores mediated her coaching approach, as evidenced by her frequent references to the standardized state assessment when working with teachers. For example, she provided practice standardized assessment questions at every cross-school workshop and often referenced how activities aligned with concepts included on the statewide assessment.

While in some ways the coach reinforced accountability frames through her frequent references to the state standardized assessment, she also pushed back against beliefs that test scores represented the ultimate indicator of teacher effectiveness. Reflecting on her collaborative work with teachers, she cited increased use of rich tasks in their classrooms. She stated, “it may not be reflected in test scores, but that’s a shift in practice I have seen.” In the context of persistent accountability frameworks, the coach’s broader view of what it means for a teacher to improve practice positioned her as a bridge between teachers’ and administrators’ expectations.

In light of the accountability pressures shaping leaders’ expectations for improvement at each school, the coach often functioned as a liaison between teacher teams and administrators. One teacher described her as responsible for “negotiating” between school leaders and teacher teams to help them find middle ground. Over the course of the project, the coach increasingly viewed her role as a liaison and was proud when she successfully facilitated understanding between teacher teams and administrators. For example, during year three of the project, she worked with school leaders and teacher teams to adapt a tool designed to generate meaningful feedback from classroom observations, as teachers had discussed issues with the prior process during their team meeting. Reflecting on her experience helping to adapt the tool, the coach explained:

[Teachers and leaders] are supposed to work together to help shift instruction, and it makes sense to me. But to actually be part of the process and know what it feels like and what it should look like . . . that was really insightful.

By working with both teachers and administrators to create the observation tool, the coach was able to help foster agreement about instructional goals. Administrators agreed to focus on how teachers promote discussion of students’ thinking in the classroom as well as students’ use of academic language. These goals helped to clarify administrators’ expectations for teachers. To continue promoting coherence, the coach referenced using the question “How is our instruction going to help us achieve these goals?” to guide teachers’ collaborative discussions.

In addition to helping facilitate the development of shared goals, the coach also mediated tensions about the use of collaboration time. Reflecting the pervasive accountability culture in the schools studied, administrators at one site felt strongly that teachers should follow a structured agenda for collaboration meetings and record their responses to questions created by administrators. During the first and second years of the study, teachers were frustrated by spending their time filling out these forms as opposed to freely discussing problems of practice. At the end of year two, the coach shared with school leaders that the meeting prompts allowed little time for teachers to meaningfully “look for rich tasks, or dive into the task, or talk about student work.” As a result of this feedback, administrators agreed to give teachers more autonomy over how they used their meeting time.

In the final year of the project, the coach further bridged relationships between teachers and administrators by engaging leaders in plans to expand a coteaching exercise that teachers were interested in implementing. At one school, the coach outlined the details of coteaching to the principal and explained how it promoted instructional improvement by providing an opportunity for teachers to co-plan a lesson and observe one another’s instruction. The principal “loved the plan” and was eager to set aside funding for teachers to coteach over the next year. At another school, the principal described the coach’s efforts to implement coteaching as “critical” because it provided opportunities for teachers to reflect together about “what worked and what did not” across instruction. By serving as a bridge between teacher teams and administrators, the coach played an influential role in fostering support for capacity building.

Discussion and Conclusion

Findings from this paper shed light on the complexities of collaborative coaching in schools under pressure to improve, revealing specific strategies the coach used to bridge across collaboration and capacity building (see Figure 1). The coach in this study helped to increase collaboration in schools with limited engagement in teacher team meetings (despite time set aside for collective work), illuminating the powerful role coaches can play in building collaborative cultures. However, the coach’s work was complicated by challenges related to addressing gaps in teachers’ content knowledge in collaborative settings, as well as by persistent accountability pressures and divergent expectations between teacher teams and administrators. The coach navigated these challenges by fostering student-centered discussion and teachers’ collaborative relationships, tailoring capacity-building opportunities to ensure all teachers could engage, and negotiating across roles to align improvement efforts. As addressed in the following sections, these findings reflect the potential benefits of collaborative coaching as an improvement strategy, as well as the need for ongoing support to ensure coaches are well-prepared to address the complexities of group dynamics and accountability pressures.

Implications for Practice

Despite its popularity as a reform strategy, coaching is often “under-utilized, under-valued, and under leveraged” (Woulfin et al., 2023, p. vii). Teachers’ experiences in this study illustrate the potential benefits of collaborative coaching in schools under pressure to improve student achievement and also illuminate strategies and supports that may promote success. For example, findings underscore attributes beyond content expertise that are needed for coaches to effectively support collaborative capacity building. Teachers’ perceptions of the coach as willing to listen, responsive to their specific needs, and knowledgeable about math content provided a foundation for capacity building, aligning with previous work documenting the importance of trusting relationships between coaches and teachers (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015; Mayer et al., 2015).

Our study also provides novel insights into how the coach supported teams of teachers with shifting discussion about math instruction to focus on student thinking by providing new cross-school planning and reflection opportunities. Across the four years studied, teachers’ conversations about student thinking increased over time. Such discussions may serve as a foundation for higher-depth opportunities for teachers to learn through collaborative conversations (Horn et al., 2017; Weddle, 2020), supporting future instructional decision-making (Horn & Kane, 2015).

Findings also reveal unique challenges of collaborative coaching, which may inform future efforts to support coaches’ capacity building. While teachers in this study increasingly discussed student thinking, some also demonstrated misconceptions about math concepts. Improving teachers’ access to content area expertise has been established as a potential benefit of coaching (Hopkins et al., 2013), but the coach struggled to address some teachers’ deeper gaps in content knowledge in collaborative settings. Reflecting on the longitudinal nature of this study, instructional coaches may need ongoing support in navigating the complexities of collaborative coaching, including addressing teachers’ gaps in content knowledge in ways that do not jeopardize collaborative relationships. This is particularly salient in schools with large opportunity gaps that tend to have disproportionate numbers of uncertified and inexperienced teachers (e.g., Owens & Candipan, 2019) and, thus, may have a greater need for content support.

Finally, this study expands prior work revealing the mediating role leaders play in the work of coaches (Huguet et al., 2014; Woulfin, 2018), as well as the role coaches play in framing policy messages (Woulfin & Jones, 2018), by providing new insights about how coaches may bridge connections across administrators’ and teacher teams’ needs. In this study, the coach strived to bridge these interests by constructing teacher capacity-building opportunities around activities that aligned with administrators’ goals (e.g., preparing for the state standardized assessment) while also attending to teachers’ instructional planning needs. Because of her position supporting collaboration, the coach was also able to identify and address tensions between administrators and teachers surrounding the use of teacher team-meeting time. These findings suggest that coaches supporting teacher teams play unique roles as brokers attending to collective interests.

Implications for Research

Given the need for research that examines how coaching can vary based on context (Woulfin, 2018; Blazar, 2020), this study makes important contributions to our understanding of a collaborative approach to coaching in schools under pressure to improve. Through engaging in longitudinal analysis, we identified promising shifts in teachers’ discussions about instruction and collaborative relationships over the course of four years. However, findings also reflect several challenges complicating capacity-building efforts. To more deeply explore the influence of collaborative coaching approaches on teachers’ instruction, future research is needed. Prior research has connected both coaching (Campbell & Malkus, 2011) and collaboration (Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Vescio et al., 2008) to student learning and achievement. While findings from this study demonstrated a strong shift toward discussions about math instruction that focused on promoting students’ understanding and engagement, we did not conduct observations of teachers’ instruction or review student work. Additional longitudinal research including classroom observation data, particularly in high-accountability contexts, is needed to examine how a collaborative approach to coaching ultimately enables or constrains student learning opportunities. Such research is especially needed as schools and educators strive to accelerate student learning and promote equity during and beyond pandemic recovery.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X231187372 – Supplemental material for Fostering, Tailoring, Negotiating: The Complexities of Collaborative Coaching in Schools Under Pressure to Improve

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X231187372 for Fostering, Tailoring, Negotiating: The Complexities of Collaborative Coaching in Schools Under Pressure to Improve by Hayley Weddle, Marie Lockton and Amanda Datnow in Educational Researcher

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education through a grant to University of California, San Diego. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. We wish to sincerely thank the participants of this study who gave generously of their time and welcomed us into their work settings. We also greatly appreciate our project team colleagues for their support, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their feedback.

ORCID iDs

Hayley Weddle

Amanda Datnow

Notes

Authors

HAYLEY WEDDLE, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of education policy at the University of Pittsburgh, 4200 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15260; hweddle@pitt.edu . Her research focuses on how leaders across levels of the education system implement policies in ways that enable or constrain equity.

MARIE LOCKTON, Ed.D., is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0070; mlockton@ucsd.edu . Her research focuses on how knowledge and beliefs spread and take hold in educational systems, from classrooms and districts to online spaces.

AMANDA DATNOW, Ph.D., is chancellor’s associates endowed chair and professor in the Department of Education Studies and Associate Dean of Social Sciences at the University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0070; adatnow@ucsd.edu . Her research focuses on educational reform and policy, with a particular interest in the professional lives of educators and issues of equity.

References

Blazar

(2020). Teacher coaching to improve instruction at scale: Opportunities and challenges in policy contexts. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–9.

Booker

L. N.

Russell

J. L.

(2022). Improving teaching practice with instructional coaching. EdResearch for Recovery Design Principles Series. EdResearch for Recovery Project.

Campbell

P. D.

Malkus

N. N.

(2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454.

Coburn

C. E.

Russell

J. L.

(2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

Connor

C. M.

(2017). Commentary on the special issue on instructional coaching models: Common elements of effective coaching models. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 78–83.

Darling-Hammond

Wei

Andree

Richardson

Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford University and National Council of Staff Development.

Datnow

Park

(2018). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. Routledge.

Desimone

L. M.

Pak

(2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.

Finnigan

K. S.

Daly

A. J.

(2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71.

10.

Franke

M. L.

Kazemi

(2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.

11.

Gardiner

(2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching: Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195–215.

12.

Gibbons

L. K.

Cobb

(2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260.

13.

Gibbons

L. K.

Cobb

(2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411–425.

14.

Gibbons

L. K.

Kazemi

Lewis

R. M.

(2017). Developing collective capacity to improve mathematics instruction: Coaching as a lever for school-wide improvement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 231–250.

15.

Hanno

E. C.

(2022). Immediate changes, trade-offs, and fade-out in high-quality teacher practices during coaching. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 173–185.

16.

Hashim

(2020). Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–44.

17.

Hemphill

F. C.

Vanneman

(2011). Achievement gaps: How hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2011-459. National Center for Education Statistics.

18.

Hopkins

Spillane

J. P.

Jakopovic

Heaton

R. M.

(2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.

19.

Hopkins

Spillane

J. P.

Shirrell

(2018). Designing educational infrastructures for improvement: Instructional coaching and professional learning communities. In Yoon

S. A.

Baker-Doyle

K. J.

(Eds.), Networked by design (pp. 192–213). Routledge.

20.

Horn

I. S.

Garner

Kane

B. D.

Brasel

(2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 41–54.

21.

Horn

I. S.

Kane

B. D.

(2015). Opportunities for professional learning in mathematics teacher workgroup conversations: Relationships to instructional expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 373–418.

22.

Huguet

Marsh

J. A.

Farrell

(2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(52), 1–31.

23.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

24.

Lockton

(2019). Deliberating change: Conditions that shape how teachers voice and debate beliefs about instructional reforms. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 4(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2018-0018

25.

Lockton

Weddle

Datnow

(2020). When data don’t drive: Teacher agency in data use efforts in low-performing schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 243–265.

26.

Louie

N. L.

(2016). Tensions in equity- and reform-oriented learning in teachers’ collaborative conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.001

27.

Mangin

M. M.

Dunsmore

(2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213.

28.

Matsumura

L. C.

Sartoris

Bickel

D. D.

Garnier

H. E.

(2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693.

29.

Mayer

Woulfin

Warhol

(2015). Moving the center of expertise: Applying a communities of practice framework to understand coaching in urban school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 101–123.

30.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.

32.

Munter

(2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635.

33.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.

34.

Owens

Candipan

(2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high-and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197.

35.

Reardon

S. F.

(2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.

36.

Ronfeldt

Farmer

S. O.

McQueen

Grissom

J. A.

(2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514.

37.

Sirin

S. R.

(2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

38.

Spillane

J. P.

Hopkins

Sweet

(2015). Intra- and inter-school interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110.

39.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

Wallace

Thomas

(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

40.

Sutton

P. S.

Shouse

A. W.

(2018). Investigating the role of social status in teacher collaborative groups. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117751125

41.

Vangrieken

Dochy

Raes

Kyndt

(2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.

42.

Vanneman

Hamilton

Anderson

J. B.

Rahman

. (2009). Achievement gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2009 455. National Center for Education Statistics.

43.

Vedder-Weiss

Segal

Lefstein

(2019). Teacher face-work in discussions of video-recorded classroom practice: Constraining or catalyzing opportunities to learn? Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 538–551.

44.

Vescio

Ross

Adams

(2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

45.

Weddle

(2020). Teachers’ opportunities to learn through collaboration over time: A case study of math teacher teams in schools under pressure to improve. Teachers College Record, 122(12), 1–40.

46.

Weddle

(2022). Approaches to studying teacher collaboration for instructional improvement: A review of literature. Educational Research Review, 35, 100415.

47.

Woulfin

S. L.

Jones

(2018). Rooted in relationships: An analysis of dimensions of social capital enabling instructional coaching. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(1), 25–38.

48.

Woulfin

S. L.

Rigby

J. G.

(2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323–328.

49.

Woulfin

S. L.

Stevenson

Lord

(2023). Making coaching matter: Leading continuous improvement in schools. Teachers College Press.

50.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2018). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–16.

51.

Yin

R. E

. (2018). Case study research and its applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB