Research has shown that teachers implement new practices only 10 percent of the time after hearing about them in workshops, 20 percent of the time after a practice session with demonstrations and personal feedback, and 90 percent of the time with coaching (Gawande, 2011). Coaching is clearly a critical tool for leaders support a culture of a student learning and professional growth.
My thinking about coaching was overhauled by Elena Aguilar’s The Art of Coaching. Aguilar (2013) began with a scenario that outlined the myriad of different lenses for coaching. This thoughtful approach to coaching was a striking contrast to other researchers who boil down coaching into a series of discrete moves divorced from their underlying purpose. Aguilar (2013) goes on to outline several different coaching stances including facilitative and directive. Aguilar defines the facilitative stance as one in which the “coach pulls and helps the client to be autonomous” (Aguilar, 2013, 164). The coach helps his/her coachee to be reflective and guides him/her in that process. Conversely a directive approach is more authoritarian. In this stance a coach might give a teacher direct feedback on his or her practice or ask a question that is directed at improving a specific area (Aguilar, 2013).
I had read many other articles on coaching, but these categories resonated more with me than others I had studied. For example I appreciate Killion (2010) contrasting “heavy” and “light” coaching. Light coaching is coaching that is more supportive and guided by the teacher’s needs. It might take the form of more emotional support than coaching of teaching practices. Conversely heavy coaching is focused on student achievement with less investment in developing a relationship with a teacher (Killion, 2010). While I understand Killion’s (2010) claim that light coaching often yields little improvement, Aguilar’s approach to coaching highlighted for me that there might be a moment that requires “coaching light.” Though it’s important to remember that we don’t want to only engage in coaching light, doing a few of the elements within this category is not necessarily going to sabotage our work as coaches and in fact there might be times that engaging in light coaching is valuable. This shifted my thinking from a focus on specific strategies to more expansive view that prioritized principles of coaching and different frames for coaching. As Aguilar states, “When I’m coaching, I sometimes imagine that I am shifting my body back and forth between two large, flat river stones - the ‘facilitative stone’ and the ‘directive stone’” (2013, 165). This was a powerful change in the way that I approached coaching and freed me to think first about the goal and then choose flexibly from a range of strategies to move towards that goal.
In addition to Aguilar’s (2013) writing about coaching, my thinking about coaching has also been significantly shaped by Jim Knight’s principles. Knight’s (2011) principles of effective coaching include equality, choice, voice, reflection, dialogue, praxis and reciprocity. Each of these principles, however, raise questions in terms of application. How does a coach balance giving teacher voice and choice while also directing him or her to elements of his or her practice that will most improve student learning? For example similar to Knight, Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) suggests that coaches should help teachers come to their own conclusions about what needs to change in their classroom, if the teacher does not come to the conclusion that the coach had decided upon prior to the session, Bambrick-Santoyo agrues that the coach should focus and scaffold the questions to get the teacher to that conclusion. I worry that this could become a game of “guess what I am thinking” instead of authentic reflection. I think that this tension comes from perhaps two different purposes for coaches. On one side we have the idea that coaching should be a tool to help teachers learn how to reflect (ask the questions that ultimately we want teachers to ask themselves) and on the other side there is an idea that coaching is a way to share feedback with teachers.
This tension highlights the importance of being able to flexibly move back and forth between different frameworks for coaching. Combining frameworks is also supported by Ippolito (2010) who suggests that coaches should engage in both responsive and directive moves within each coaching session. She explains that experienced coaches find it effective to shift seamlessly back and forth between supporting and challenging teachers as they work with them one on one. She also suggests using protocols to help coaches achieve this balance. Similarly Novak, Reilly, and Williams (2010) divide leaders interactions with teachers into three categories: coaching, mentoring, and supervisory. They suggest leaders should start in the coaching zone and move to the mentoring zone when they find the coachee lacks experience. The supervisory zone should be reserved for those who “challenge authority or blatantly disregard policy” (Novak, 2010). Novak contends that coaching should never be about giving people orders. Instead it should be about supporting them to improve their practice. This idea resonates with me and makes me wonder about how when a coach is also a teacher’s supervisor how ithat supervisor ensures the conversation is not viewed as orders. Before I came to HTMCV, I wasn’t sure that was possible. I was lucky enough, however, to see the director in action and the warm tone and demeanor of support clearly created a space for coaching. This will be a lesson I will take with me in all my coaching conversations.
I had read many other articles on coaching, but these categories resonated more with me than others I had studied. For example I appreciate Killion (2010) contrasting “heavy” and “light” coaching. Light coaching is coaching that is more supportive and guided by the teacher’s needs. It might take the form of more emotional support than coaching of teaching practices. Conversely heavy coaching is focused on student achievement with less investment in developing a relationship with a teacher (Killion, 2010). While I understand Killion’s (2010) claim that light coaching often yields little improvement, Aguilar’s approach to coaching highlighted for me that there might be a moment that requires “coaching light.” Though it’s important to remember that we don’t want to only engage in coaching light, doing a few of the elements within this category is not necessarily going to sabotage our work as coaches and in fact there might be times that engaging in light coaching is valuable. This shifted my thinking from a focus on specific strategies to more expansive view that prioritized principles of coaching and different frames for coaching. As Aguilar states, “When I’m coaching, I sometimes imagine that I am shifting my body back and forth between two large, flat river stones - the ‘facilitative stone’ and the ‘directive stone’” (2013, 165). This was a powerful change in the way that I approached coaching and freed me to think first about the goal and then choose flexibly from a range of strategies to move towards that goal.
In addition to Aguilar’s (2013) writing about coaching, my thinking about coaching has also been significantly shaped by Jim Knight’s principles. Knight’s (2011) principles of effective coaching include equality, choice, voice, reflection, dialogue, praxis and reciprocity. Each of these principles, however, raise questions in terms of application. How does a coach balance giving teacher voice and choice while also directing him or her to elements of his or her practice that will most improve student learning? For example similar to Knight, Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) suggests that coaches should help teachers come to their own conclusions about what needs to change in their classroom, if the teacher does not come to the conclusion that the coach had decided upon prior to the session, Bambrick-Santoyo agrues that the coach should focus and scaffold the questions to get the teacher to that conclusion. I worry that this could become a game of “guess what I am thinking” instead of authentic reflection. I think that this tension comes from perhaps two different purposes for coaches. On one side we have the idea that coaching should be a tool to help teachers learn how to reflect (ask the questions that ultimately we want teachers to ask themselves) and on the other side there is an idea that coaching is a way to share feedback with teachers.
This tension highlights the importance of being able to flexibly move back and forth between different frameworks for coaching. Combining frameworks is also supported by Ippolito (2010) who suggests that coaches should engage in both responsive and directive moves within each coaching session. She explains that experienced coaches find it effective to shift seamlessly back and forth between supporting and challenging teachers as they work with them one on one. She also suggests using protocols to help coaches achieve this balance. Similarly Novak, Reilly, and Williams (2010) divide leaders interactions with teachers into three categories: coaching, mentoring, and supervisory. They suggest leaders should start in the coaching zone and move to the mentoring zone when they find the coachee lacks experience. The supervisory zone should be reserved for those who “challenge authority or blatantly disregard policy” (Novak, 2010). Novak contends that coaching should never be about giving people orders. Instead it should be about supporting them to improve their practice. This idea resonates with me and makes me wonder about how when a coach is also a teacher’s supervisor how ithat supervisor ensures the conversation is not viewed as orders. Before I came to HTMCV, I wasn’t sure that was possible. I was lucky enough, however, to see the director in action and the warm tone and demeanor of support clearly created a space for coaching. This will be a lesson I will take with me in all my coaching conversations.