Search results

Coaching is a widespread form of human development that has grown considerably in recent years. However, it is not well understood in entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and little is known about the success factors for coaching in SMEs. Thus, this article presents a theoretical framework for coaching SMEs. The paper reports on a study carried out to develop and validate a coaching model for entrepreneurship in SMEs.

A mixed methods approach was undertaken in SMEs in the Iranian pharmaceutical industry. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the samples and the model's dimensions.

The results show five chief constructs of the entrepreneurial coaching model. In particular, the authors determine the importance of early goal setting and identify the essential characteristics of an effective entrepreneurial coach.

Firstly, the data relied solely on the pharmacy industry in Iran, indicating a need for future studies to explore coaching programs across various industries and countries. Additionally, a quantitative aspect of the research involved participants answering questionnaires based on their perceptions. This subjective nature introduces a potential for inaccuracies in participants' perceptions and expectations. Furthermore, the inherent bias of program stakeholders may have led to exaggerated responses. To mitigate these issues, it would be beneficial to conduct experimental and longitudinal research, which could address these concerns more effectively.

By utilizing a theoretical framework, the authors goal is to define the essential features of coaching in SMEs and compare it to other developmental interventions to highlight both commonalities and distinctions. This approach addresses the recent suggestions in coaching literature to distinguish coaching practices tailored for particular groups, specifically entrepreneurs involved in SMEs.

This study contributes to understanding the essential features for successful entrepreneurial coaching in SMEs.

This chapter offers an original conceptualization of co-mentoring – situated in the wider literature – together with evidence of its impact and factors facilitating impact across applications of co-mentoring in transnational schooling contexts. Co-mentoring is an alternative to more traditional, hierarchical, and unidirectional approaches to mentoring in education. Extending the extant literature on collaborative mentoring (or “comentoring”), co-mentoring is a collaborative, compassionate, and developmental relationship – informed by specific approaches to mentoring and coaching – that is intended to support participants' professional learning, development, effectiveness, and well-being, and potentially improve their workplace cultures. Detailing three different applications of co-mentoring across the United Kingdom and United States, the chapter evidences the realization of these intended outcomes (professional learning, etc.), and highlights factors found to be instrumental in facilitating the positive impacts of co-mentoring. We end with recommendations for undertaking research and practice that build human and organizational capacity through co-mentoring. A takeaway is that intentional approaches to co-mentoring can have value for participating parties and broader impact, as well as wide applicability.

The use of “homework”, activities outside of the classroom or session, is widely applied in a range of disciplines including teaching, therapy and training. The argument advanced by advocates is that it provides an opportunity to consolidate knowledge learnt in the classroom and develop mastery in an applied environment. However, the use of homework has not been widely discussed or researched within business coaching, which is a form of personal development. This exploratory study aims to examine whether homework, as a coaching intervention, may enhance the clients' learning experience.

Data were collected from eight early career coaches and eight coaching clients. Not all clients were related to the coaches. Each client had experienced a minimum of three coaching sessions. Interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. The study explored the use of (1) client-led, (2) coach-led and (3) collaboratively developed homework during the engagements.

The findings indicated that homework is widely used and was perceived to have mixed effects. The positioning of the homework by the coach, including the terminology used to describe the activity, and the type of work can affect the level of engagement and thus the perceived value generated.

This is the first study to explore the nature of “homework” in coaching. More work is needed to better inform the use of “homework” in coaching practice, including the type of work and how this is agreed with different types of clients, for example, should homework be coach, collaborative or client led?

The focus in professional learning is often on formal activities such as workshops, conferences and courses. There is also a tendency to focus on formal programmes of coaching and mentoring in teacher education. Emphasising the formal activities means that everyday informal learning in educational settings is overlooked. Informal coaching and mentoring could be utilised to support teachers' career-long professional learning.

This is a conceptual paper which draws on the author's research and seeks to expand what is considered as professional learning within teacher education – namely, informal coaching and mentoring. To understand how to support this professional learning, the lens of social practice is used with an emphasis on learning environments and learning practices.

Coaching and mentoring can be identified in informal encounters in the staffroom, school corridors and many places and situations. Findings are presented in relation to the importance of informal learning from and with colleagues and the role of headteachers.

More attention has been paid to informal learning, but there is still a need for what could be termed an “informal turn”. Understanding that informal coaching and mentoring afford professional learning opportunities to the teachers who both provide and receive coaching and mentoring can help to support their learning. Recommendations are provided on how educational settings can facilitate and support these professional learning opportunities while preserving their informality.

The purpose of this study was to identify if and how K–6 teachers perceive that their literacy instructional coaches influence their writing teaching.

The authors employed a parallel convergent mixed-methods design with survey data. The authors used thematic analysis to identify patterns within short-answer responses.

K–6 teachers receive little literacy coaching specific to writing. However, when they do receive coaching, they believe it benefits their writing instruction. Sustained coaching through the coaching cycle, frequent collaborations, and support with writing instructional resources and strategies were reported as the most influential writing coaching practices.

Sample size was a limitation to this study. Of the 66 participants, 41 (62%) completed the entire survey.

This research provides coaches with valuable insights about coaching practices that teachers find to be the most effective in influencing their writing instruction. The increase in teachers' competence in writing instruction due to coaching provides evidence to administrators and stakeholders that coaching in writing is an area in need of attention.

This study adds to research specific to the coaching of writing within the K–6 context, which currently is sparse.

In digital education curricular initiatives, some teachers are taking on key roles when appointed as instructional coaches (ICs) and become crucial in the sustainability of the initiative by coaching teachers. This study aimed to find out the difficulties ICs are facing when mentoring teachers in the development of the digital skills and to identify the coaching activities the coaches offer.

Employing a mixed-methods research design focusing on a qualitative approach, the research team conducted 6 focus groups with 38 ICs from 12 primary schools in Switzerland. Quantitative descriptive data were collected through a survey submitted before and after the focus group.

The results indicate that (1) the professional development (PD) activities offered to teachers vary greatly depending on the instructional coach characteristics and the school to which the teachers belong, (2) the in-service training of ICs should include coaching and leadership skills and (3) distributed leadership to ICs could facilitate the adoption of technologies by teachers and support change in the school.

Some ICs offer activities with a low involvement of the teacher. ICs' training programs should provide strategies to better take advantage of PD activities. The authors suggest training ICs in PD activities, aligned with Gibbons and Cobb's (2017) such as analyzing classroom video or lesson study involving a group of teachers working together with an expert to improve a lesson. District and school leaders should provide ICs with explicit guidance and more resources to achieve systemic change. ICs should also be empowered by being involved in the development of the school's continuing education training plans.

This study presents a new perspective about understanding and applying in-service teacher PD in the context of a digital education curricular initiative.

Virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) supported educators during the COVID-19 pandemic and the resurgent movement for racial justice that arose in 2020. Four VCoPs offered a venue for practitioners and researchers to develop social capital in the face of pandemic and persistent institutional racism.

Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with organizers of four VCoPs and collected supporting documentation from those organizers.

VCoP organizers created opportunities to develop bridging and bonding capital of equity- and justice-focused educators.

The analysis points toward the affordances of VCoPs in crisis response and equity leadership.

This original analysis extends work on communities of practice, generally, virtual communities of practice, and equity leadership development.

This paper explores a five-year case example of two educators engaged in practice-based professional development (PBPD) for the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model in a middle school. It examines the transformative effects and challenges of improving writing instruction, the activities involved and alternative PBPD delivery methods. Highlighting a collaborative effort between an institute of higher education (IHE), a middle school and ThinkSRSD, a PBPD for SRSD developer, the example underscores the long-term benefits and innovative insights into engaging with PBPD for SRSD over multiple years.

The case involves analyzing survey data collected over five years. These surveys, which included specific SRSD-related queries and open-ended questions, were instrumental in assessing the evolution of the educators’ perceptions regarding SRSD and their engagement with PBPD. Additionally, the paper details PBPD activities as documented in a research journal, providing a comprehensive account of the developmental process.

Through a cross-institutional partnership, two middle school general educators participated in PBPD for SRSD for 30 h across five years. Their engagement with PBPD progressed from initial introduction and implementation to facilitating PBPD for SRSD among peers and at the national level. Over time, the most consistently enacted SRSD action was “memorize it,” while actions such as “discuss it,” “support it” and “independent performance” showed greater variability. Both educators consistently praised SRSD and sought continued PBPD engagement over the five years.

Our case example is the first five-year analysis of PBPD for SRSD among general middle school educators, highlighting the benefits and challenges of adopting evidence-based writing instruction. Our example emphasizes the need for continuous and focused professional development in areas crucial for student success, including self-regulation, prewriting strategies and techniques for fostering independent performance. Moreover, the two middle school educators’ critical feedback is invaluable for refining PBPD for SRSD. This work also enriches professional development schools (PDS) literature by offering effective strategies to support middle school teachers in developing a vibrant writing community, a cornerstone for student advancement in writing.

This two-year study illuminates the experiences of technology coaches (digital learning coaches [DL] and science technology engineering and mathematics/literacy coaches [STEM/L]) as they engaged in their own professional learning (PL) facilitated by a faculty researcher.

Technology coaches from different school districts and their respective colleagues participated in book studies as part of their PL. They reflected and debriefed individually and collaboratively with a researcher facilitator. Data were collected through interviews, field notes at meetings, observations, researchers’ reflections and artefacts. Qualitative data analysis methods were employed.

The findings offer a glimpse into (1) benefits of cross-district collaboration, (2) challenges finding resources for coaching, (3) career-long desire to learn and (4) time to build and sustain cross-collaborations.

Conclusions suggest that DL and STEM/L coaches benefit from their own dedicated, differentiated programme of PL supported by each other (as from other districts) and a researcher facilitator. Educational implications are offered for researchers and other school district stakeholders for consideration for them to foster coaches’ collaborative PL.

Importantly, this project is an exemplar of how to support coaches’ PL and growth through researcher facilitation of cross-district collaborative learning.

The concepts associated with leadership and management have often been conflated, considered one and the same phenomenon by some and then considered by others to be quite distinctive. The same ambiguity is even truer at the level of application and practicality. Only a handful of studies have attempted empirically to differentiate between the two concepts. The study sought to develop an instrument to discriminate between the two concepts.

A prospective study was conducted with two groups of scholars in the areas of leadership and management. They completed the exploratory Leadership/Management Concept Scale (LMCS), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and provided demographic information. The results from the Initial group were compared with a validation group. Standard statistical techniques were used to analyze the two groups and investigate associations among the study measures.

The LMCS effectively differentiated actions associated with leadership from actions associated with management actions. There were four distinct choices consistently selected as most consistent with leadership: influencing, coaching, modeling and ensuring resilience. No significant correlations were found between scores on the LMCS and the LPI, providing evidence that the former was capturing actions other than those associated with leadership alone.

It is empirically possible to differentiate between the actions typically associated with the concepts of leadership and management. This distinction can be invaluable in various educational programs designed to develop either or both leadership and management abilities, as well as assist in the identification of those with proclivities to one or other of the two concepts. The LMCS shows promise in reliably differentiating between the two concepts and can be useful for scholars aiming to investigate leadership or management without confounding the two.

There are numerous positions and organizational roles where leadership and management are differentiated, with one being much more needed than the other. The LMCS can differentiate empirically how potential candidates for leadership and/or management positions think about the two, which would allow a would-be employer to screen candidates for given opportunities and, depending on their conceptualization of leadership and management, assign them most appropriately.

This study fills a fundamental gap in both the leadership and management field: first in being able to provide evidence that the two concepts, while similar in some regards, are not the same and can be differentiated from each other and second, in developing an instrument (LMCS) that both practitioners and scholars can use to help their audiences better understand the differences between leadership and management and to develop actions appropriate to situational demands.