The purpose of this paper is to identify the coaching structures that aspiring principals associate with developmentally consequential coaching interactions; identify structural features/functions/attributes that shape a structure’s developmental utility and use; and consider how a multifarious coaching structure might advantage the learning experiences of aspiring principals.
This qualitative study included multiple interviews with two cohorts of aspiring principals (n=20) from one preparation program and with their leadership coaches (n=5) and was framed using the theories of social capital and networks, situated learning, and distributed cognition.
The authors identified eight coaching structures that aspirants identified as consequential to their learning and development. The authors identified four structural features/functions/attributes that shape a structure’s developmental utility. The authors identified three factors that contribute to the developmental utility of this multifarious coaching model.
This study includes a relatively small participant sample –70 percent of the aspiring principals from two cohorts within one preparation program. Data do not include direct observations of coaching interactions within the context of individual coaching structures.
The findings suggest that the structuring of leadership coaching is a critical consideration for those designing leadership coaching programs. This multifarious structuring of leadership coaching created three developmental affordances.
This paper generates new knowledge for the field of principal preparation related to the structuring of leadership coaching and ways in which structuring can shape aspirant learning experiences. These findings are likely to also be instructive to those interested in coaching more generally.
This research was supported through a grant from the US Department of Education and the Lloyd A. Fry Foundation.
Cosner, S., Walker, L., Swanson, J., Hebert, M. and Whalen, S. (2018), "Examining the architecture of leadership coaching", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 364-380. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2017-0049Download as .RIS
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited