Promoting faculty collaboration to support school-university partnerships and increase coaching self-efficacy

Abstract

Purpose

This manuscript examines how university coaches can use the Classroom Check-Up (CCU; Reinke et al., 2008) to support continuous school improvement efforts around teacher practice within a PDS model and how collaboration between university faculty can increase their coaching self-efficacy.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is conceptual in that it presents an innovative idea to stimulate discussion, generate new ideas, and advance thinking about supporting educator coaching efficacy in school-university partnerships.

Findings

The paper provides insights and ideas for using a collaborative faculty coaching model based on the CCU (Reinke et al., 2008). Each coach provides insight about adapting the model to fit teacher, school, and district needs. Moreover, coaches report on how collaborating impacted their coaching self-efficacy.

Originality/value

This paper fulfills an identified need to support continuous school improvement efforts amid a teaching shortage using a collaborative faculty coaching model. Moreover, the authors explore “coaching self-efficacy” as a rare but valuable construct that is impacted by peer feedback.

Citation

Larson, K.E., Savick, S.L., Silver, P.M. and Poling, R.E. (2024), "Promoting faculty collaboration to support school-university partnerships and increase coaching self-efficacy", School-University Partnerships, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1108/SUP-05-2024-0007

One of the founding principles of the Professional Development School (PDS) model was, and continues to be, the “emphasis on improvement of practice through inquiry” (Johnson et al., 2021, p. 293). PDS is a mutually beneficial model that promotes the continuous improvement of practice for preservice teachers, in-service professionals, and students alike through collaboration and resource sharing (Johnson et al., 2021; Savick & Watson, 2024). Continuous school improvement through innovation is dependent upon the relationship between school and university partners, and support is provided to schools through targeted professional learning experiences (Savick & Watson, 2024). Promoting innovation during these professional learning experiences is fostered by the spirit of collaboration between faculty who serve as liaisons to school partners (Savick & Watson, 2024). In addition, university faculty grow in their efficacy to support continuous improvement through targeted faculty development experiences (i.e. training mentors, developing workshops, and coaching PK-12 teachers).

The following article describes a collaborative university faculty experience that focuses on using coaching to support school partners’ desire to engage in the continuous improvement of teachers. Four university coaches share their experiences in three ways; first, by highlighting their experiences as instructional coaches to promote continuous school improvement in their partner schools; second, by explaining how they used the Classroom Check-Up model (Reinke et al., 2008) to guide their coaching experiences; and third, by summarizing their lessons learned in terms of how their self-efficacy as coaches changed as a result of this experience.

Background/literature review

School university partnerships and coaching

Although university faculty typically serve as coaches or mentors to preservice teachers (Yendol-Hoppey & Franco, 2014), university faculty have also coached teachers and district leaders to improve teacher practice in PDS partnerships for over a decade (Beal et al., 2011; Corkery et al., 2015). In one study, university faculty members served as coaches to teacher leaders who served as mentors to newly certified English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers (Beal et al., 2011). In this model, university coaches, school coaches, and school administrators collaborated to disseminate knowledge to smaller learning communities. In another study, PDS university partners worked together to form a team of instructional coaches from a group of district teachers and described their experiences of learning to coach in the context of a school-university partnership (Corkery et al., 2015). Researchers in the second study found that shared vulnerability was a necessary ingredient for learning to coach (Corkery et al., 2015). The coaching literature in the PDS partnership projects above illustrates how university partners teach pre-service teachers, district leaders, and building leaders how to coach educators and future educators, however, less is known about the extent to which university partners can collaborate and serve as instructional coaches to classroom teachers in partner schools.

The current project began with the spirit of inquiry (PDS Essential 2; National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021) from university faculty to not only develop teachers in partnership schools, but also each other. The university faculty coaches began with the following questions: (1) How can we support our partnership schools’ continuous improvement goals through instructional coaching? (2) How can we work together to increase our coaching efficacy? The coaches began their collaborative project by selecting a research-based coaching model previously used by the first author in prior research, which is called the Classroom Check-Up (CCU; Reinke et al., 2008).

Classroom check-up

The classroom check-up is a consultation model designed to increase the likelihood of teacher behavior changes through feedback and support (Reinke et al., 2008). The CCU has been used to improve teacher practice in several areas including classroom management (Reinke et al., 2008, 2012), behavior management for teachers of students with autism (Pas, Johnson et al., 2016; Pas, Larson et al., 2016), culturally responsive classroom management (Pas, Larson, et al., 2016), and improving teachers’ ability to prevent, detect, and respond to bullying (Bradshaw, Waasdorp et al., 2018; Pas et al., 2019).

The CCU (Reinke et al., 2008) consists of five steps: (1) assessing the classroom, (2) providing the teacher with feedback, (3) developing a menu of interventions, (4) choosing the intervention collaboratively with the teacher, and (5) having the teacher self-monitor implementation of the intervention. During the first step, assessing the classroom, the coach interviews the teacher and gathers preliminary data from the teacher using an ecology checklist that the teacher completes. During this step, the coach also collects data by conducting classroom observations. In the second step, the coach uses the data from the interview, the ecology checklist, and classroom observations to provide feedback so that the teacher and the coach can set goals collaboratively (Reinke et al., 2008; Pas, Larson et al., 2016). In the third and fourth steps of the CCU, the teacher and coach identify and choose an evidence-based intervention from a menu of options that is designed to improve positive classroom outcomes. In the fifth step, the teacher self-monitors their daily implementation of the chosen intervention (Reinke et al., 2008).

The CCU primarily focuses on improving teacher classroom management skills (Reinke et al., 2008), but more recently, researchers modified the CCU to meet program and project outcomes (Pas, Johnson et al., 2016; Pas, Larson et al., 2016; Bradshaw, Pas et al., 2018; Bradshaw, Waasdorp et al., 2018). In this paper, we drew from the CCU steps outlined by Bradshaw, Pas et al. (2018) and Pas Larson, et al. (2016) and further streamlined these steps to include: (1) relationship building, (2) data collection, (3) feedback and goal setting, and (4) progress monitoring (see Figure 1). These modifications, particularly for the first step, were necessary because building trust is critical to effective coaching relationships (Walsh et al., 2020). The current study will add to the existing coaching literature by examining how external coaches can use the CCU to support continuous school improvement efforts around teacher efficacy within a PDS model. Moreover, we will also examine how collaboration between university faculty can increase instructional coaching self-efficacy.

Coaching self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is one’s belief in their ability to reach a desired level of performance and is important because it influences one’s actual ability to perform (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1986, 1997) identified four areas that served as either barriers or assets to gaining self-efficacy. These include (1) mastery experiences, (2) vicarious experiences, (3) verbal persuasion, and (4) physiological arousal. Much of the literature in education pertains to teacher self-efficacy. For instance, mastery experiences are defined as “a sense of satisfaction with one’s past teaching success” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007, p. 945). Verbal persuasion is self-efficacy that is developed as a result of “verbal interactions that a teacher receives about their performance and prospects for success from important others in the teaching context, such as administrators, colleagues, parents, and members of the community” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007, p. 945). Vicarious experiences are related to one’s experiences observing a model of the target performance. The level that the teacher sees themselves in the person modeling the performance influences their ability to see or not to see themselves able to reproduce that performance. Finally, physiological arousal relates to the levels of joy and success that encourage progress or anxiety. Progress encourages higher self-efficacy while anxiety lowers it (Usher & Pajares, 2008).

Although increasing self-efficacy through instructional coaching is frequently documented in the literature (Lejonberg et al., 2018; McNulty & LeAnne, 2022; Usher & Pajares, 2008, Walsh et al., 2020), there is far less research on instructional coaching self-efficacy. The limited research available centers on the self-efficacy of literacy coaches in secondary schools (Cantrell et al., 2022) and in a study regarding the development and initial testing of a new self-efficacy scale for elementary literacy coaches (Ulenski et al., 2019). As such, one purpose of this article is to highlight how university coaches’ self-efficacy changed as a result of collaborative instructional coaching experiences. The section below summarizes the purposes of this article in the context of PDS partnerships and its relation to the National Association for School-University Partnerships (NASUP) Nine Essentials (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021).

Purpose

This practitioner-based manuscript chronicles the process that Mid-Atlantic University’s (pseudonym) PDS network initiated to promote continuous school improvement through a professional learning opportunity designed to improve in-service teacher efficacy within several of its partner schools. Mid-Atlantic University is a small, urban, private university located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States that offers both traditional and alternative teaching certification programs. Upon completing their required coursework, all teacher candidates are expected to complete a full-time, 20-week, internship experience assigned between two different schools that participate in a formal PDS partnership model. Mid-Atlantic University currently partners with 13 PDSs across five public school systems which includes seven elementary schools, one elementary/middle school, two middle schools, and three high schools. The majority of Mid-Atlantic University’s PDS partnerships are long-standing with 10 or more years of experience engaging in mutually beneficial collaboration.

The primary emphases in partnership work across the PDS network include: (1) providing clinical practice opportunities for the university’s teacher candidates, and (2) supporting the school improvement efforts of individual school partners. With lower numbers of traditional teacher candidates participating in the traditional internship experience in recent years, more emphasis has been placed on supporting school improvement efforts in individual partnerships.

This paper will discuss Mid-Atlantic University’s efforts to initiate a process to support in-service teacher efficacy within several of its partner schools using a research-based coaching model: Classroom Check-Up (Reinke et al., 2008). This initiative specifically aligns with NASUP’s Essential 1: A PDS is a learning community guided by a comprehensive, articulated mission that is broader than the goals of any single partner, and that aims to advance equity, antiracism, and social justice within and among schools, colleges/universities, and their respective community and professional partners; Essential 3: A PDS is a context for continuous professional learning and leading for all participants, guided by need and a spirit and practice of inquiry; and Essential 4: A PDS makes a shared commitment to reflective practice, responsive innovation, and generative knowledge (Cosenza et al., 2023).

While there are multiple, formal leadership roles associated with the partnerships in Mid-Atlantic University’s PDS network, including university advisors, school-based site coordinators, and district leaders, three leadership roles are specific to the focus on supporting school improvement efforts in the partner schools: the university liaison, the PDS principal, and the university PDS coordinator. The university liaison is the contact person representing the visibility of the university in each PDS partnership. Responsibilities of the university liaison include securing professional development to meet the needs of school-based faculty, providing training for school-based mentors, and chairing the coordinating council which is the governing body of the partnership. The PDS principal represents the school partner in each partnership. Responsibilities of the principal generally include collaborative strategic planning to address PDS needs and school improvement issues, allocating time for professional development, and communicating the progress of the PDS to all stakeholders. Finally, the university PDS coordinator provides leadership for the entire network, working collaboratively with PDS liaisons, site coordinators, principals, and local school system representatives to support the effective implementation of PDS activities.

Similar to the experiences of other university schools of education, the number of traditional internship placements has decreased over the past few years due to the national teacher shortage (Flores & Craig, 2023; National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Most of the teacher candidates at Mid-Atlantic University have chosen to accept jobs as conditional teachers and count their first year of teaching as the state’s required internship experience. As a result, many of the teacher candidates are working outside of formal PDS partnerships, accepting jobs wherever there are openings. This situation caused the PDS coordinator at Mid-Atlantic University to reconsider the role of the liaison in each formal PDS partnership if those partnerships were to remain intact. Because there were so few interns placed in each of the 13 partnerships, and so few mentors to train and support throughout the network, the liaison’s role was expanded to include several other responsibilities: (1) research and grant work related to school-improvement goals; (2) the recruitment of teachers in PDSs for Mid-Atlantic University’s certificate, Master’s, and Doctoral Programs; and (3) alternative clinical field supports for non-PDS placements.

Specific to this paper was the focus on supporting school improvement efforts within our partnerships. Each of the network’s 13 PDS liaisons was asked to meet with their respective partnership principals at the start of the school year to identify one school improvement focus area in moving into the academic year, and then brainstorm the most appropriate way to move forward in supporting that goal. Liaisons were also asked to determine the sources of data that would be collected to document the outcomes of their school’s improvement projects and suggest the publication, meeting, or conference in which they would be sharing their results. This expectation allowed liaisons to commit to their projects and hold themselves accountable for data-driven results. This manuscript is one such project.

Once school improvement focus areas were identified in each partnership, liaisons met with one another monthly as a group to share updates, successes, and challenges presented in their individual PDS partnership work. These meeting times provided an intentional space for support and problem-solving throughout the process. As part of these support discussions, liaisons in four of the 13 schools shared a similar school improvement focus: supporting in-service teacher efficacy through instructional coaching for principal-identified and/or self-nominated in-service teachers in their PDSs.

Research design

Participants in this study were four university PDS liaisons, hereafter referred to as coaches, who were interested in using coaching as a way to support school improvement in their respective partnerships. The partner schools were located in four school districts and included two elementary schools, one elementary/middle school, one middle school, and one high school. Data were derived from meeting minutes and coaches’ reflections about their experiences. Data were analyzed using an iterative process of collecting data, peer debriefing, and returning to data collection (Beal et al., 2011).

Approach

The four university coaches met via Zoom at the end of the first quarter to discuss how they could support school improvement efforts in their PDS schools using coaching. During their initial conversation, the first author offered a research-based coaching model that she had been trained in called the Classroom Check-Up (CCU; Reinke et al., 2008) to help structure the coaching process. The newly formed PDS university coaching group agreed that the steps in the CCU provided a beneficial framework with which to begin and proposed looking at how the CCU could be modified and differentiated based on the needs of the teachers they would be coaching. Towards the end of the meeting, members of the PDS coaching group discussed how they could recruit teachers for coaching, and during the second quarter, the group worked on the first step of the CCU: relationship-building with teachers who they agreed to coach.

At the end of the second quarter, the coaches began meeting weekly to discuss updates on their coaching progress. During the weekly meetings, each coach checked in with the group (both personally and professionally) and then provided updates about their coaching case(s) and lessons they were learning as they coached their teacher(s). During each coach’s update, the other university coaches actively listened and provided feedback based on their experiences as university supervisors of interns and as teacher educators knowledgeable about evidence-based practices to support teacher efficacy. In addition, the first author guided the group by sharing how she had used the CCU in the past and how she was using the CCU steps and resources with the teacher at her PDS school. The PDS coaching group met 10 times (totaling 10 hours) during the third and fourth quarters to update and support one another’s coaching progress. The first author took minutes on each coach’s update during the Zoom meetings. Her notes served as documentation and reminders to the coaches of their PDS coaching journey while writing this manuscript.

Findings

The section below outlines each coach’s experience and is organized using modified CCU steps (i.e. relationship building, data collection, feedback, goal setting, and progress monitoring). Following the documentation of each experience, each coach reflected on how the overall experience impacted their self-efficacy.

Coach 1

Context: Susquehanna Middle School

Susquehanna Middle School (SMS; pseudonym) serves about 750 students in grades 6–8. About 70% of the students identify as White white/Caucasian, about 10% identify as Hispanic, 10% identify as Black, and less than 5% of students identify as Asian. Roughly 70% of students at SMS need additional support to be considered “proficient” or “advanced” in math, while about 45% of the students need additional assistance to be considered “proficient” or “advanced” in reading. According to the coach and reports from teachers in the building, the school climate is overall positive.

The coach at SMS has 20 years of experience in education. She earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology, a master’s degree in teaching secondary social studies, and a doctorate in special education. This was her fifth year serving as a PDS liaison, but her first year working with SMS.

Mr. Jones (pseudonym) has five years of teaching secondary social studies. This was his second year teaching middle school social studies at SMS. According to the coach, he has an abundance of historical knowledge and a sincere passion for teaching. Although he wanted to improve his craft, he reported being unsure of exactly how he needed to change his instruction to meet administrators’ expectations at SMS.

Relationship building

As a first-year liaison to SMS, the coach took several steps to learn more about the school community and build relationships with stakeholders. During the first quarter, she visited teachers’ classrooms to introduce herself, joined several school-sponsored events, attended leadership team meetings, and hosted a partnership breakfast. After getting to know more about the school and the school community, the liaison asked the principal if she could offer coaching to any interested teachers in the building.

According to the principal, there was one teacher in particular, Mr. Jones, that he wanted the coach to support. Following that conversation, the coach drafted an email to Mr. Jones about the opportunity. Mr. Jones replied that he was excited to begin, so she set up a meeting with him to get to know more about him, his teaching, and his goals. The coach noted that one of the benefits of embarking on a coaching relationship with Mr. Jones was that she had already built a relationship with him during her previous visits to the school.

During the initial interview, the coach asked Mr. Jones about his teaching experience and how he managed his classroom. Mr. Jones explained his motivations for becoming a teacher and what his goals were for the year and his career. This conversation provided the coach with enough evidence that Mr. Jones was willing to be coached to improve his practice. Toward the end of the visit, the coach asked Mr. Jones to complete an ecology checklist that she had modified to align with his school system’s teaching and learning cycle. To further build the relationship, the coach helped Mr. Jones plan for an observation lesson that was scheduled in the second quarter.

Observations/data collection

The coach used several methods of data collection including a modified version of an ecology checklist (Bradshaw, Pas et al., 2018; Bradshaw, Waasdorp et al., 2018) and the CCU observation form (Sprick & Reinke, 2010). The modified ecology checklist was completed by the principal, Mr. Jones, and the coach. The coach examined the differences between the perspectives of Mr. Jones and the principal to determine if there were any discrepancies or common areas of potential improvement. The coach collected additional data during a classroom visit near the end of the second quarter via the CCU observation form, at which point she also completed the ecology checklist. The coach synthesized the data collected from the interview, the site visits, and the ecology checklist to provide feedback to Mr. Jones.

Feedback and goal setting

The coach provided feedback to Mr. Jones via Zoom after her first formal observation. Initially, the coach was going to provide Mr. Jones with a page of feedback that was color-coded (red, yellow, and green) on several aspects of classroom management, but after consulting with her faculty coaching team, she recognized that it would likely be a more efficient use of time to ask Mr. Jones how he thought the lesson plan went and then to use a “glows and grows” feedback approach. On the “glows” side of the t-chart, she outlined the aspects of the lesson and classroom management that went well. On the “grows” side of the checklist, she offered some suggestions that Mr. Jones might want to consider changing.

By the end of the feedback session, it was clear from the conversation that Mr. Jones wanted help using evidence-based teaching strategies, particularly related to classroom management and differentiating instruction. Knowing that Mr. Jones was an avid reader, the coach suggested to Mr. Jones that they could read and discuss content from a textbook that she used in her special education methods course. Providing this resource aligned with his learning style. In preparation for their future meetings, she asked him to read chapters from the textbook, identify three connections or applications to his classroom, and write down at least one question he had after reading.

Progress monitoring

After the observation in January, the performance feedback was ongoing. The coach met with Mr. Jones about every two to three weeks to check in and see how things were going. Specifically, they discussed how he was applying the content from the textbook in his classroom. The coach reported that having Mr. Jones apply evidence-based strategies from the book was beneficial to start supporting his thinking about his classroom management and about differentiating his instruction for all learners, particularly those with additional learning needs (e.g. multi-lingual learners and students with disabilities).

The coach collected data two more times during the third and fourth quarters via the CCU observation form (Sprick & Reinke, 2010). During the second observation, the coach saw a substantial improvement in Mr. Jones’s ability to engage students using a variety of instructional strategies to teach the content. She provided feedback to Mr. Jones about the indicators on the CCU, including opportunities to respond, correct academic responses, disruptions, and reprimands. Moreover, she provided feedback to him about the classroom climate, objective alignment, and closing activities. Upon hearing the coach’s feedback, Mr. Jones asked the coach to share her impressions with his principal. The coach wrote an email to the principal summarizing the data she had collected.

The coach returned for a final observation during the fourth quarter and, once again, used the CCU observation form and anecdotal notes. She met with Mr. Jones via Zoom after the observation and provided feedback based on her observation. She followed up with him in an email that outlined her feedback. She structured her feedback using four aspects of his teaching: (1) Welcome, (2) Warm-Up, (3) Getting Students' Attention, (4) Lesson Activities, (5) Engagement/On-Task, and (6) Closure/Exit Ticket.

To close out the case, the coach asked the principal and the teacher to complete the ecology checklist a second time. The coach also completed the ecology checklist. In reviewing the data from the checklist, all three parties agreed that Mr. Jones had become more proficient according to the teaching and learning cycle criteria outlined by his school system.

Reflection: impact of coaching experience on coaching efficacy

The coach reported the experience as having a positive impact on her coaching efficacy. Specifically, she found it helpful to meet with other university coaches regularly to talk about the coaching cases. Although she had worked as a coach for several years in the past and was influenced primarily by the mastery experience domain of self-efficacy, she learned how to be more flexible regarding the CCU process as a result of these discussions. For instance, because a relationship had already been established, the coach only asked a few questions from the formal interview script. Additionally, rather than using the original CCU Ecology Checklist (Bradshaw, Pas et al., 2018; Bradshaw, Waasdorp et al., 2018; Reinke et al., 2011), the coach created a modified version of the checklist that was specific to the teaching and learning cycle of the school system so that she could use the same language and expectations as the administration and school district. Moreover, she took the suggestions from her university coaching team and used a “glows and grows” t-chart to structure the feedback, rather than color coding the feedback green, red, and yellow. Lastly, rather than providing a menu of evidence-based options from which the teacher could select to improve along one goal, she used the information she knew about the teacher and participated in a “textbook study” with him. The teacher had the flexibility to choose which chapters appealed to the skills he wanted to improve, rather than selecting one teacher behavioral goal to improve (i.e. opportunities to respond, praise, reprimand, etc.). By being flexible, the coach felt efficacious in differentiating the process for the teacher. In listening to the experiences of her university coaching team, she opted to modify the original resources to meet the specific needs of the teacher. Taken together, she improved her coaching self-efficacy because of the encouragement and feedback, or verbal persuasion, from her coaching team.

Coach 2

Context: Lakeside High School

Lakeside High School (pseudonym) is a comprehensive high school located in a suburban community. It has 1,575 students in grades 9–12 with a student-teacher ratio of 16 to 1. Demographics of the school include 56% male, 44% female; 78% Black, 12% Hispanic, 6% Asian, 3% White, and 1% Other. According to the PDS liaison, the partnership is strong with many experienced mentors who are willing to host interns, a robust coordinating council, and reciprocal partnership benefits including professional development opportunities to support both school and university faculty, and a grant-funded, college access program that focuses on preparing potential first-generation college students for post-secondary education.

The coach is a full professor at the university with 32 years of experience in the field of education. Her areas of expertise include culturally responsive instruction and educational leadership. She has served as the liaison to Lakeside High for 13 years and is familiar with the school’s demographics, school improvement initiatives, strengths, and challenges. The teacher, Mr. Wabash (pseudonym), is a second-year teacher who completed his internship experience at Lakeside through Mid-Atlantic University’s teacher preparation program. Mr. Wabash teaches ninth-grade social studies in inclusive and self-contained classroom settings. The administration and his colleagues speak very highly of the relationships he has built with his students since he arrived at the school almost two years ago.

Relationship building

Having served as the PDS liaison to Lakeside for over a decade, the relationship between the liaison and the school’s administration and faculty was already strong. At the start of the school year, the university coach asked the principal if there was a teacher who might be interested in receiving complimentary coaching sessions using a tool that the university was considering implementing as part of mentor training the following fall. The opportunity was intended to be mutually beneficial in that the teacher would be benefitting from instructional feedback, and the coach would gain valuable feedback about the instructional tool and CCU protocol she was implementing during the observation lessons. The principal recommended Mr. Wabash, who welcomed the opportunity to engage about his craft as well as offer constructive feedback to his former teacher preparation program. The coach had served as Mr. Wabash’s professor in his preparation program and dropped into Mr. Wabash’s classroom at Lakeside to see how he was doing whenever she visited the school. Because the coach and the teacher had an established relationship, the initial interview was conversational and focused primarily on his general teaching experiences and professional practices, his values as an educator, his past coaching experiences, and the specific challenges related to teaching for which he would like support. The interview was held on Zoom during the evening and lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Observations/data collection

The coach and teacher worked together to identify a date and time for the initial observation. Mr. Wabash chose his “most challenging” class – a ninth-grade, self-contained government class – to participate in the observation. The class consisted of a two-hour block of time with lunch occurring mid-way through the class period. The students participated in 45 minutes of instruction before lunch and the remaining 45 minutes after lunch. The coach used a modified version of the CCU Ecology Checklist (Bradshaw, Pas et al., 2018), to collect data during the observation. In addition, she took detailed notes, summarizing each part of the lesson. Her notes included the start and stop time for each activity and recorded teacher and student behaviors during and between each activity. Emphasis was placed on noting whether the activities completed during the class period were directly related to the assessment assigned at the end of the class period, as this was identified as a specific challenge related to teaching for which Mr. Wabash requested support during the initial interview. The coach synthesized the data collected from the interview, the observation, and the Ecology Checklist to provide feedback to Mr. Wabash.

Feedback and goal setting

The coach provided feedback to Mr. Wabash during his planning period, immediately following the observation lesson. In keeping with the CCU protocol, she explained the CCU feedback form and linked the data and feedback to his request to discuss whether the activities designed for the lesson were directly related to the assessment. Rather than providing the teacher with direct feedback about her perceptions of the lesson based on the ecology checklist and her notes, the coach asked for teacher input throughout the feedback session, as previous research suggested (Pas, Johnson et al., 2016). For example, the coach asked Mr. Wabash to explain how each of the three activities implemented during the lesson aligned with the assessment at the end of the lesson. Without input from the coach, the teacher was able to identify that one of the activities did not directly align with the assessment, after which he explained how he might change the activity to create more alignment. The conversation then moved into the benefits of the backward mapping process whereby the objective and assessment are created before activities for each lesson as a way to better ensure alignment.

Following this conversation, the teacher identified several strengths of this lesson including pacing, the use of visuals and videos as differentiated practices, and the promotion of real-world connections to maintain motivation on the part of students throughout the lesson. To address goal setting at the end of the coaching session, the coach asked the teacher to identify a goal moving forward. He maintained that he would like to continue working on connecting his lesson activities to his daily assessments. Together, Mr. Wabash and the coach designed a plan of action – incorporating the use of self-reflection question prompts when evaluating each lesson – to validate alignment between the activities and assessment moving forward. Potential barriers to achieving success were also discussed. Barriers included concerns about unanticipated student behaviors. By the end of the coaching session, it was clear that Mr. Wabash felt confident about his ability to apply the coaching conversation to his next lesson. A follow-up session was discussed at the close of the coaching session.

Progress monitoring

In subsequent instructional conversations, the coach and the teacher participated in the following activities to focus on the identified goal: (1) co-analyzed sample lessons in the voluntary curriculum guide provided by Mr. Wabash’s school system to evaluate the alignment of lesson activities to several daily assessments; (2) co-reflected on a series of lesson activities and assessments in lesson plans developed by Mr. Wabash; and (3) co-reflected on a lesson that was taught by Mr. Wabash. The self-reflection question prompts, which were identified as part of Mr. Walsh’s initial action plan were used during each activity.

Reflection: impact of coaching experience on coaching efficacy

The coach reported that the collaboration she had with her fellow coaches substantially impacted her coaching self-efficacy. In reflection, this coach’s sources of self-efficacy primarily centered on vicarious experiences, mastery experiences, and verbal persuasion. Engaging in several months of coaching conversations alongside three educators with a combined 60+ years of experience helped her see her colleagues as knowledgeable and committed to their combined success. In particular, when a personal reflection on Mr. Wabash’s lesson was brought forth, each coach offered a different “spin” on the situation, providing this coach with credible ideas for moving forward as well as reflecting backward. Oftentimes, this coach felt validated by sharing her reflections on her coaching experiences with Mr. Wabash while learning about differing perspectives. From a mastery experience standpoint, this coach also felt validated by the insightful reactions her fellow coaches had when processing one of the ideas she offered as it related to their personal experiences. The energy that occurred during the coaching debrief sessions brought a source of motivation that is difficult to find outside of an authentic professional development experience such as this.

Coach 3

Context: Madison Elementary School

Madison Elementary School (pseudonym) serves approximately 750 students in grades K-5. Racial/ethnic demographics of the school include 46% African American, 33% White, 11% two or more races, and 9% Hispanic. Approximately 5% of the school’s population are multilingual learners. Over 50% of the population is economically disadvantaged with almost 60% qualifying for free and reduced meal programs. According to the PDS liaison, the school has a positive climate, and highly qualified, caring teachers who hold high expectations for the students. The school community uses data-informed practices to support the academic success of its students.

The coach is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Mid-Atlantic University where she teaches initial certification courses and supervises interns who are completing their student teaching experiences in partner schools. She has served as the liaison to Madison for seven years. The teacher, Ms. Brown (pseudonym), is a first-year teacher who completed her internship experience at Madison through Mid-Atlantic University’s teacher preparation program and teaches fourth grade.

Relationship building

The coach met with the principal during the last month of the previous school year to collaborate on ways to strengthen their PDS partnership. As a way to support teacher retention efforts associated with the school improvement plan, the principal suggested a focus on coaching new and/or non-tenured, in-service teachers at the school. The coaching plan was solidified the following fall after the initial rounds of informal observations by the administration. The principal identified a first-year teacher, Ms. Brown who he believed would benefit from participating in a coaching relationship with the liaison.

As Ms. Brown was a former university student and intern of the coach, a positive relationship had already been established. Ms. Brown welcomed the opportunity to work with her former professor and supervisor to strengthen her teaching practices. During their first meeting, Ms. Brown shared a desire to focus on classroom management and engagement practices and also wanted direction on how to meet the individual needs of students with significant behavioral and/or learning needs. Most notably, Ms. Brown wanted to increase the levels of engagement for all students.

Observations/data collection

Based on the information provided by the administration, the instructional coach, and Ms. Brown, observations were planned to collect multiple forms of data using the CCU Observation Form (Sprick & Reinke, 2010) to identify themes and patterns under classroom management and engaging learners. Forms of data collection included event, duration, and interval recording on the following areas of the form: Behavioral benchmarks, engagement, classroom structure, instructional, and classroom management. Anecdotal notes were also taken at the same time to provide context for each data point, in addition to a four-square observation form in which the coach recorded what she saw, heard, loved, and suggested for improvement. Specifically, the coach was looking for engagement levels (class/individual/small group), on/off-task behavior, following/not following expectations, and detailed behavioral data for specific students. Data was also collected on teacher expectations, instructional strategies used, praise, transitions, disruptive behaviors, and classroom procedures.

Feedback and goal setting

After several observations, the coach met with Ms. Brown to review the findings. The coach explained the areas in which data was collected under the areas of classroom management and engaging learners on the CCU. While analyzing the data together, the coach and teacher identified the areas and behaviors where high levels of engagement were observed as well as where engagement was low. In addition, while reviewing the data, the coach prompted Ms. Brown about the lesson to gain information on her perspective, including what went well, and how she would change or improve the lesson. The coach noted the themes emerging and what would become the focus areas for Ms. Brown, increasing student engagement and positive behaviors to support on-task behavior. Ms. Brown and the coach mapped out supports that could be implemented during the weeks following. As part of the action plan, the coach would model classroom expectations and instructional supports as requested by Ms. Brown. Supports listed in the action plan fell under two categories: classroom management and instructional supports.

Progress monitoring

The coach observed Ms. Brown every one to two weeks to provide support, model, and take data on engagement, on-task behaviors, and overall progress with instructional supports. Every two to three weeks, the coach and Ms. Brown met to reflect upon their joint plan, what was working, and what needed to be changed or reworked.

During the first weeks of implementation, the coach made note of strategies and supports from the action plan observed and collected data on engagement levels and behaviors. Upon request, the coach modeled classroom expectations, directions, or procedures and demonstrated how to be consistent in these practices. The coach also ran a small group to model differentiated instruction strategies. In the first follow-up session, the coach encouraged Ms. Brown to reflect on what was working and to build off the positive with several additional ideas for implementation.

At the midway point, the coach analyzed the data points and noted several areas of improvement during the coaching sessions. A positive trend could be seen in the engagement area. To further encourage this positive trend, the coach provided a list of differentiated practices for Ms. Brown to choose from and modeled one of those practices.

The coach continued observations, data collection, modeling, and coaching sessions with Ms. Brown through the fourth quarter. During the final coaching session, the coach shared the summarized data with Ms. Brown. Together they reflected on the positive improvements and where additional attention was needed. To wrap up the coaching experience, the coach guided Ms. Brown to additionally reflect on the experience as a whole and the next steps she could take in the action plan.

Reflection: impact of coaching experience on coaching efficacy

The coach gained valuable takeaways to impact her coaching efficacy in the future. From the weekly coaching sessions with fellow coaches, there was time to debrief, reflect, contribute, and listen. Through the vicarious experiences of coaching a new teacher, the coach found a common thread with others who had novice or even experienced teachers. From discussions on classroom management practices, engaging learners, and strategies for meeting the needs of the students, the coach realized the many areas in which one can support educators. The coach was able to share her mastery experiences and recount her knowledge in best practices for increasing positive behavior. From reflection, the coach was able to discern her strengths as an educator to bring to a coaching framework. The comradery with the coaching team provided positive affirmation or verbal persuasion to encourage the coach to challenge herself to improve her coaching practices. It also provided the coach with support and ideas for the emotional and psychological aspect of self-efficacy to coaching new teachers.

Coach 4

The fourth coach will discuss her coaching experience at two separate schools. The reflection of her coaching experiences is included after the second coaching case narrative.

Context: Highland Elementary School

Highland Elementary School (pseudonym) is a suburban school that has received awards for excellence in the past. It currently serves 696 students in grades PreK-5. The student population includes 56% White, 18% Asian, 12% Hispanic, and 10% Black students. Roughly half of the students at Highland are considered “proficient” or “advanced” in math, while about 62% of the students are considered “proficient” or “advanced” in reading. Highland Elementary has seen a steadily growing multilingual learner (MLL) population from 12.8% in 2019 to 15.9% in 2023.

The PDS coach at Highland has over 20 years of experience in education. She earned a bachelor degree in Middle Eastern studies, a master’s degree in English/teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), and a doctoral degree in instructional leadership for changing populations. Her areas of expertise include systemic functional linguistics and contextualizing English language instruction for K-12 students.

Ms. Finn (pseudonym) has considerable teaching experience. She has been an elementary teacher for over 20 years, mentors intern teachers, and is the lead teacher of her grade level. Although Ms. Finn is highly qualified in teaching the general student population, she asked for coaching in scaffolding instruction for the increasing population of MLLs to her class.

Relationship building

The liaison of this partnership had worked with Highland Elementary for the past three years along with a rotation of three different site coordinators. In 2023, a new principal took leadership of Highland who was an enthusiastic supporter of PDS partnerships and sought to make the most of the relationship. The liaison and Ms. Finn worked closely for five months before the coaching experience and developed a fast friendship. Due to strong professional friendship, there was no need to spend much time building the relationship between the coach and Ms. Finn. During the pre-observation meeting, the teacher clearly stated what she was hoping for in the coaching relationship: how she could better support her low-literacy multilingual learners and newcomers. She had tried the scaffolding suggestions recently presented in workshops delivered by the PDS liaison, but now wanted to take the next step with specific recommendations in her teaching practice.

Observations/data collection

A half-day observation was conducted in which the coach observed English Language Arts and Social Studies Instruction for Ms. Finn’s 5th-grade class. This class was composed of 22 students which included two special education students and eight multilingual learners, two of which were reading at a first-grade level. Anecdotal notes were collected on grade, class, content covered, positive teaching practices, observations of MLL scaffolding, and suggestions for improvement.

Feedback and goal setting

Interestingly, because Ms. Finn was a school leader, she invited her entire grade-level team to join in the feedback session, so that others could learn along with her how to support their MLLs. Along with encouragement of all that went well, specific suggestions included the following strategies: teaching and reinforcing vocabulary, using students’ first language in combination with English, differentiating materials, using translation technology to scaffold instruction, and creating rotating learning centers so that explicit instruction could be given to students at different levels of English learning.

The group discussed all of the suggestions, but most particularly, the focused reading instruction which the low-level MLLs needed and how this could be built into the schedule through rotating groups of students. Ms. Finn and her peers worked with the coach to set up a few key goals. These included a site visit to another PDS school employing learning centers well, and a greater emphasis on vocabulary instruction in every class and during downtime, which included the rearrangement of the class furniture so that a large multilingual vocabulary word wall could be employed. Additionally, Ms. Finn determined that she would use translation technology to support student communication in small group discussions, clarify directions, and differentiate reading. Finally, the teacher planned to meet with her principal to discuss extended phonics-based reading instruction for her struggling readers.

Progress monitoring

The coach and teacher kept in contact over text, phone, and email as Ms. Finn began instituting changes. Though there was only one formal meeting to review all the goals, this constant communication kept the coach apprised of the teacher’s progress and allowed for additional suggestions as changes were instituted. Within a week, Ms. Finn’s classroom was reconfigured and the changes to vocabulary instruction were implemented. She introduced daily vocabulary instruction and reinforcement through word walls and daily vocabulary reviews during line-up times. The teacher began to have success using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to differentiate materials for her MLLs. After receiving permission from the other PDS school, Ms. Finn set up a day-long visit to the partner school to observe the effective use of rotating learning groups to differentiate the reading instruction for the many different levels of students in the class. The teacher then restructured her class to follow this model.

Ms. Finn will transition to becoming a resource teacher in her school next year and the coach was invited to provide monthly professional development sessions and coach all new teachers in supporting their multilingual learners. The coach will continue to support Ms. Finn in her new role as a resource teacher. The educator at the partner school who agreed to allow Ms. Finn to observe her has agreed to be recorded so that all of the teachers at Highland Elementary School can watch how she conducts her student learning groups.

Context: Johnson Elementary School

Johnson Elementary School (pseudonym) is a suburban school serving working-class families. The student population includes 49% Black, 29% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 7% White. The percentage of MLLs has steadily increased from 15.6% in 2019 to 27.2% in 2023. The PDS partnership decided to host two days of grade-level professional development sessions on scaffolding instruction for MLLs, delivered by the same liaison/coach, referenced in the coaching experience with Highland Elementary above. The training was well received by faculty members. Though one-fourth of the evaluation forms suggested that coaching would be a great next step, the only person to volunteer to be coached was Ms. Henry, a lead third-grade teacher with over 15 years of experience.

Relationship building

There was already a strong relationship between Ms. Henry and the coach. The two had worked together for just one year, but had spent time out of the school building, discussing the needs of the school along with sharing life experiences over lunch. They had already spent a lot of time discussing challenges the teacher was facing in supporting her MLLs.

Observations/data collection

The coach observed Ms. Henry’s English Language Arts class which was composed of 25 students which included six multilingual learners. Anecdotal notes were collected on grade, class, content covered, positive teaching practices, observations of MLL scaffolding, and suggestions for improvement.

Feedback and goal setting

Similar to the teacher at Highland Elementary, Ms. Henry was a teacher-leader in the school and surprised the coach by inviting her whole grade level team to join in the feedback session. The coach reviewed all the elements of the lesson that went well and addressed the need to honor the first language and culture of the MLLs during instruction. The coach introduced specific examples in the lesson where this could have been addressed. All teachers present were receptive to this information and discussed immediate changes that they could make in their classrooms. The teacher set as a primary goal to build the students’ first languages into her instruction not only as a scaffold, but as a way to honor the students’ multilingual abilities. The teacher would also look for ways to build the students’ cultural assets into instruction in the way of examples, visuals, and comparisons.

Progress monitoring

During the coach’s second observation of the classroom, Ms. Henry shared that her students were now teaching her Spanish as a result of her emphasis on honoring first language. During the math lesson, translanguaging was used multiple times. There were still no cultural artifacts in the classroom and culture was not woven into the lesson, however, there was Spanish added to the vocabulary word wall.

Reflection: impact of coaching experience on coaching efficacy

The coach’s self-efficacy in coaching grew through both the experience coaching and the collaborative support of the weekly PDS coaches’ meeting. Though the PDS coach had over 15 years of experience supervising interns and new teachers, the experience of coaching highly qualified content teachers in Highland and Johnson Elementary Schools was threatening. There was fear involved that the observation would not elicit helpful feedback or that the experienced teachers would be offended by the suggestions. It was encouraging to see how well-received and applied the suggestions were by the teachers and unexpectedly, their grade-level colleagues. It is possible that the teacher’s already strong self-efficacy in her ability to make the needed changes made the work easy, and in turn, built the coach’s self-efficacy. The positive and supportive school administrations at both schools added to the support of both teachers and coach by encouraging the visit to see learning centers at another PDS school and enthusiastically applauding the changes that were being made. Additionally, the weekly meetings with other coaches provided this coach with the structure needed to monitor the progress of those participating in the coaching opportunity. The professional friendship and verbal encouragement of ideas were motivating to this coach and added both a model and a community component that made this project an enjoyable and encouraging learning experience.

Implications and lessons learned

The coaches sought to support continuous school improvement by providing coaching to teachers across five schools in four different school systems. In analyzing the coaches’ findings, several themes emerged including relationship-building, differentiated uses of modified CCU materials, and use of content expertise. We also summarize our findings around coaching self-efficacy and share implications for future PDS work.

First, the coaches agreed that relationship-building was the cornerstone of collaboration with the school, with the teacher with whom they worked, and with one another. Specifically, each coach spent a considerable amount of time building relationships throughout the school as the PDS liaison. Second, once the coaches had established themselves within their schools, they worked with the teacher to establish relational trust. Having this trust with the teacher likely prompted the teachers’ willingness to be coached (Walsh et al., 2020). Lastly, as colleagues, the coaches had already built trusting relationships with one another and highlighted the importance of a safe and supportive community as the key to increasing their coaching self-efficacy. Moreover, meeting regularly also allowed the group to grow in their efficacy as coaches and teacher educators.

Second, the coaches appreciated having the CCU as a framework but also desired autonomy regarding to how to implement each step (see Figure 1). In other words, the CCU steps looked different in practice for each coach, so there was a level of differentiation that took place within the framework. Coaches realized during their conversations together that they must scaffold and differentiate the particulars within each step of the CCU coaching process for each teacher according to their needs. All of the coaches collected data, but the tools or methods of data collection were differentiated based on teacher need (i.e. modified ecology checklist, event and frequency recordings, anecdotal notes, etc.). Although the coaches provided feedback and set goals with their teachers, the ways in which they provided data were different (i.e. “glows and grows” t-chart, group feedback, goal-setting template, one-to-one, etc.). Lastly, ongoing progress monitoring and support looked different for each teacher (i.e. resource study, in-person conversations, texts, emails, phone calls/Zoom meetings, etc.).

Third, each coach was able to bring their area of expertise to the teacher they coached as well as to the weekly coaching debriefs. For instance, each author had expertise in a specific instructional area (i.e. special education, classroom management, TESOL, culturally responsive practices, etc.) but was also able to collaboratively share their experiences to solve problems around classroom management issues, collaborating with school administration, and best practices in supporting teachers.

Fourth, all the coaches agreed that this process improved their coaching self-efficacy. Specifically, each coach cited growing as a result of Bandura’s four influences of self-efficacy (i.e. mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal). For instance, each of the coaches touched upon how their past experiences as supervisors, teacher educators, or coaches influenced how they improved their self-efficacy based on mastery experiences. Moreover, all of the coaches described how meeting together regularly improved their self-efficacy. Embedded within those regular coaching calls were coaches’ reports about how things were going with their cases, thereby highlighting the influence that vicarious experiences had on their performance. Lastly, all of the coaches experienced positive emotions related to the successes that they had that influenced their self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007).

Finally, it is clear that coaching is one type of support for continuous school improvement within PDS partnerships. Building relationships within the schools, using a research-based coaching model that relied on data to provide feedback and guidance, and meeting together to give and receive feedback on the process all contributed to school improvement efforts. Future research should measure the extent to which coaching improved teacher self-efficacy and the impact that an efficacious teacher workforce has on PDS partnerships.

Conclusion

Coaching is an underutilized service that can be provided to teachers within PDS schools and universities to improve practice within these two spaces. Supportive and collaborative relationships among university faculty support school improvement efforts and affect coaching self-efficacy. Moreover, coaching is a targeted professional development opportunity that can be extended beyond university faculty to include mentor teachers, university supervisors, and pre-service teachers. By participating in this type of collaborative experience, school-university partnerships can be strengthened. Additionally, relationships among university faculty can also become stronger. Taken together, we advocate for the use of coaching to extend beyond the experience outlined above. Specifically, we believe that all PDS stakeholders have the capacity to coach, and we encourage these stakeholders to be open to the idea of being coached. When we are equal givers and receivers in the coaching process, we have the potential to transform educational spaces for the collective good.

Figures

Figure 1

Modified classroom check-up process for coaching within PDS partnerships