Active Ingredients of Instructional Coaching Results from a qualitative strand embedded in a randomized control trial

Transcription

1 Active Ingredients of Instructional Coaching Results from a qualitative strand embedded in a randomized control trial International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry May 2015, Champaign, IL Drew White, Michelle Howell Smith, Gina Kunz, and Gwen Nugent University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1

2 Acknowledgements This work was developed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) as part of the National Center for Research on Rural Education, funded by U.S. Department of Education (grant # R305C090022). The opinions, views, and conclusions expressed in this presentation may not reflect those of the funding agency.

3 Embedded Mixed Methods Design RCT Intervention Study Grounded Theory Study Merges More Complete Understanding

4 Coaching Science Inquiry in Rural Schools (CSI) RCT to investigate effects of instructional coaching in science for rural science teachers Two week in-person summer institute Six- to eight-weeks of technology-delivered instructional coaching sessions Implementing scientific inquiry lesson units in chemistry, earth, physical, and life sciences for middle and high school students (grades 6 12)

5 Research Questions Central Research Questions: What are active ingredients of instructional coaching? Those unique components of an intervention that constitute what is hypothesized as responsible for targeted teacher and student outcomes (Sheridan, Rispoli & Holmes, 2014) Sub Question 1: How do teachers who received effective instructional coaching describe the active ingredients? Sub Question 2: How do coaches who provided effective instructional coaching describe the active ingredients?

6 Adapting Grounded Theory Data collection was constrained by the RCT Could not do true theoretical sampling Could not continue data collection to reach true saturation Data analysis could not truly influence data collection protocols

7 Data Sources 53 articles on instructional coaching 3 semi-structured focus groups with 16 rural science teachers who had completed their CSI coaching experience in the first year of the RCT study (94 pages of data) 1 focus group with three CSI coaches at the conclusion of their two years coaching rural science teachers (69 pages of data)

8 Methods 1. Reviewed literature 1. Identified 182 overlapping components important to success of coaching 2. Grouped into coach, teacher, and coach-teacher relationship components 2. Conducted Grounded Theory analysis of teacher focus group data independent of literature review 3. Merged the ingredient list with qualitative data 4. Conducted Grounded Theory analysis of coach focus group data within the context of existing model

9 Theoretical Model Active Ingredients of Instructional Coaching Requisite Coach Characteristics Content expertise Classroom experience Technology Flexible schedule Partnership approach Interpersonal skills Requisite Teacher Characteristics Basic knowledge Willingness Genuine interest in student learning Requisite Relationship Components Mutual Respect Reciprocal Trust Rapport Emphasis on Positive Feedback Requisite Stages of the Coaching Process Joint Planning Practice Observation Reflection Feedback Reflective Discussion Outcomes Increased teacher knowledge Improved teacher practice Positive student outcomes Sustainability

10 Unique contributions of grounded theory approach SELECTED FINDINGS 10

11 Flexible Schedule We both had to re-schedule for illness and that kind of stuff. And even it would be like, I don t know what time, but I ll call you after the kids are in bed because it s going to pointless to do this until the boys are asleep. She was really flexible about working with family schedule, which really was meaningful to me to know that they cared about you as a person, too.

12 Classroom Experience It s the idea that they ve walked a mile in your shoes. The fact that they all had classroom experience makes a big difference One of my biggest pet peeves is when you have somebody up there trying to talk about education who you re like, You ve never been inside a classroom, have you?

13 Willing to Engage in Process Buy-in is so important. The teacher belief part of it will affect every other part of the study. It will affect the students attitude. It will affect the coaching relationship, and the data gathering there. I think that if you don t have buy-in, it s almost to the point where that data should be thrown out.

14 Emphasizes Positive Feedback I expected the coaching to be more evaluative, and it was much more reflection. It was much more throwing the questions back on you. She didn t very often give me specific suggestions of what I can improve. I never felt like we were being nitpicked.

15 Emphasizes Positive Feedback My coach was awesome because I thought I sucked. I thought, Oh my God, that was the worst lesson. Look at my kids. And he s like, Your kids were engaged. Sometimes when I thought I was really, really bad, he s like, Well, look at these positive things, and this is how many questions that you asked, and these were your good questions. And then it would always be, you know, And also, this is maybe where you want to go next time. So each time it pushed me just a little bit out of the comfort zone.

16 Observation: Self-conscious Part of that process is that it depends on us, the teachers. How self-evaluative we are. After you watched your video, you have to kind of get over that Why did I wear those pants? Just being able to watch yourself on video. I didn t like that at first at all. I was like Is that what I sound like? Do I really sound crabby? I never knew that I talked with my hands as much as I talked with my hands, ever. I caught myself saying the same like ok, ok, ok.

17 Observation: Beyond Self-conscious Did you notice how fast that disappeared? How fast you started evaluating your actual process instead of yourself? But, you know, seeing my students and the ones that you didn t notice that weren t on your radar, you were able to watch. It was really good because it allowed you to go back and find the aha moments to reinforce that what you are doing is making a difference, so you could keep building on those positives and not get hung up on the one thing that didn t work.

18 Observation: Necessary You have to watch the videos. You have to talk with your coach. You have to take the positives and the negatives. And so to me, accountability just kind of sums it all up. Actively watching your own video is an active ingredient. You knew what the coach was talking about, but you also had a chance to reflect on it. I think its and important piece.

19 Reflective Discussion I liked the guided reflection. Some of the things that I knew my coach was going to be looking for, I started to look for. It made me look at the video differently than I probably would and I needed that.

20 Student Outcomes I think that by the end of this entire process, I had students that truly understood the scientific method and truly understood what a hypothesis is and how to analyze data. We may not have gotten to some of the other concepts, but it was amazing how like they d come back three months later, and they had saw something in the newspaper, and they re like, I think that data is messed up.

21 Student Outcomes At the end of the day, they still were learning something, and they were able to remember it and apply it into the future. And then like I found three months later, I d have the kid raise their hand and be like, So when we did such and such, you really wanted us to figure out that. So three months later, it was like their brains were able to wrap around the idea.

22 Student Outcomes You could see that pride because the group that I had is very unique in that they re one of our most wrecked home life groups we have. And they all happen to be in the same class. And I think to see that confidence that I can do science was really refreshing. And then to see that pride in I came up with this really cool idea, and I get to implement it. That was really, really cool to see from my students.

23 Questions? Drew White Michelle Howell Smith references available on request Copyright Babchuk & Howell Smith;

24 Suggested Citation: White, A. S., Howell Smith, M., Kunz, G. M., & Nugent, G. (2015, May). Active ingredients of instructional coaching: Results from a qualitative strand embedded in a randomized control trial. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Champaign-Urbana, IL. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant # R305C to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.