Peer coaching is a model of professional development that can be used to improve student learning by improving teaching (Macphee, 2012). The model creates a two-way learning opportunity for teachers where knowledge can be ‘co-constructed’ rather than imposed. There are studies which clearly show that it does work very successfully in schools.
The US have conducted research into the usefulness of this model in some case studies. One case study, which examines transcripts between the coach and their peer, emphasises that the coach and peer are colleagues, first and foremost (McCutchen, 2013). They make the case that preferably the coach and peer learn together and use evidence from observations and data to then improve ‘instructional planning’. Through the transcripts one can see how having a focus for the coaching session helps to guide the coaching conversation. For example, in the following transcript the coach keeps the coachee focused on a particular line and doesn’t allow for the coachee to be deviated in anyway.
Coach: So what are these work samples telling us?
Peer: Well I think that 6th period just ran out of time.
Coach: Do we really know that for certain or are there maybe some skills that they are missing?
Peer: Well I know that on the diagnostic that I gave factoring and exponents seemed to be really difficult for them.
Coach: Do you think from the diagnostic that you can determine exactly what parts of those particular topics are hard for the students?
Peer: Not really because I only had [state exam] questions on the diagnostic. But I can maybe give a quiz that breaks down the skills a bit more – like simpler questions that deal with exponents and factoring – to figure out where they are.
Coach: I think that sounds perfect – maybe you can bring that to our next inquiry meeting?
The coach helps to guide the coachee to use more diagnostic testing rather than just working on an assumption. This example highlights how having a focus, the coach can guide the coachee to a more likely issue which, in this case, is a skills gap. These are powerful, collaborative conversations where there is a sharing of knowledge and expertise, which is central to the peer coaching experiences. Knight 2011, argue that one benefit of peer coaching is that it can cultivate an open school environment and, moreover, shift school cultures towards shared accountability. Fullan argues
‘The absence of follow-up after workshops is the greatest single problem in contemporary professional development’ (Knight J. , 2019).
In this example, outlined above, one can see how there will be follow- up, as that will be discussed their next ‘inquiry’ meeting. In order for peer coaching to be successful and meet the intended purposes, commentators believe that peer coaching must be recognised as a legitimate form of professional development and certain conditions be met in order for peer coaching to achieve maximum benefit.
Findings from previous studies into the effectiveness of coaching show that providing teachers with coaches does make a difference, but to really see impact, ‘when the coach thoughtfully prepares for the debrief conversation’ there is greater impact (Knight B. a., 2011). Knight and Bearwald explain that to achieve success, a coach must develop and implement a range of skills to allow the coachee to develop new thinking. This requires thinking and careful planning about conversations.
This is a complex process with identifying what effective coaching strategies entail and how they are developed in coaching. As Rivera and McCutchen et al, 2010 explain ‘coaching is a transformative tool’. Indeed, one could say that coaching is a powerful tool because, if completed well, the whole process changes mind-set and since changes in school culture rely on the way people think, then this practice is potentially a powerful school improvement tool. And, as Knight (2011) states ‘it can cultivate an open school environment’, a factor crucial when shifting cultures towards shared accountability. Fullan and Knight (2011) claim, ‘School improvement will fail if coaching remains on an individual level’ (Meyers, 2013).
Template for discussion:
Agreed question for enquiry
Are HA engaged with learning?
Strengths
Because you … this happened…
Because you used TP children’s vocabulary increased and you used their feedback to generate facts to further learning.
Because you recapped yesterday’s lesson, learning was embedded
Because children physically made shapes it enabled them to investigate properties
Strategies that would have led to a different outcome.
If you’d…perhaps you could try… X has worked for me
When a question was asked (about name for 4 sided shapes) although it was great peers answered the question you could have challenged them to relate this further.
Could you have provided different materials to explore 3D shapes further?
Perhaps you could challenge HA by making a more complex 3D shape? Hexagonal prism (HA understood properties of a cube).
Comments