蜜桃影视

One-on-one teacher coaching generates meaningful improvements to both classroom instruction and student achievement, according to a of existing research.

But there鈥檚 a tricky caveat: Efforts to expand coaching programs on a wider scale might only dilute their value, the authors find.

The review offers some hopeful evidence in the ongoing debate around the efficacy of teacher professional development. Recent that school districts realize sparse returns from the billions of dollars and dozens of school days they invest each year on skills workshops, planning sessions, and summer seminars for teachers.

Written by Brown University鈥檚 and the University of Maryland鈥檚 , the paper compiles the results of 60 studies conducted since 2006 that examine the impact of teacher coaching on either instruction (as measured by scoring rubrics like the Classroom Assessment Scoring System or the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation) or student academic performance (as measured by standardized tests).

Coaching typically involves teachers being observed in the classroom and later receiving feedback from peers, administrators, or master teachers. Kraft and Blazar focused their analysis on studies of one-on-one programs that were conducted regularly (at least once every few weeks) over an extended period of time and geared toward the cultivation of specific skills.

On balance, they found that coaching programs tend to enhance both the quality of teaching and student achievement, though the former much more than the latter. In a conversation with 蜜桃影视, Kraft said that improvements to instruction are filtered through a long set of conditions before they can change student performance in measurable ways. Some coaching programs, for example, are geared toward developing non-academic student outcomes, such as classroom engagement or social and emotional learning.

In coaching, 鈥測ou first need to develop teachers鈥� understanding of pedagogical content knowledge,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hen you need to get them to implement that new knowledge in a way that鈥檚 effective in class, and those changes have to be large and consistent enough to increase student understanding and learning. And those students then have to demonstrate that increase in learning in a format that鈥檚 captured by state standardized tests. And that increased learning has to be on content that鈥檚 covered by state standardized tests.鈥�

鈥淪o there鈥檚 multiple points at which you could see slippage along that causal chain,鈥� he said.

Still, the impact on student achievement of implementing an effective coaching regime compares favorably with other reforms, such as student academic incentives, merit-based pay, and extended learning time, the authors write. The benefits to instruction are described as larger than the difference in quality between a novice teacher and a more experienced colleague.

High-quality programs tend to combine group training sessions with individual consultations between teachers and coaches. In terms of student achievement, content-specific programs seem to work better than generalized coaching. 鈥淕eneral coaching programs are often focused less on helping teachers improve students鈥� test scores and more on developing teachers鈥� abilities to support students鈥� social and emotional development,鈥� the authors write.

Somewhat surprisingly, quantity matters less than quality. The studies show that more hours of coaching aren鈥檛 correlated with greater effects.

But the most important variable is clearly size. Expanding a coaching intervention is consistently shown to limit its effectiveness. Kraft and Blazar separated the programs into smaller examples (less than 100 participants) and larger ones (more than 100). The smaller programs鈥� impact on instruction was nearly double that of larger programs. For student achievement, smaller programs were nearly three times as effective.

Scalability, the hobgoblin of education reform efforts, is at work again. It鈥檚 difficult to recruit and train large numbers of teacher coaches, the authors explain. Standardizing the programs across large schools, districts, and even entire states (one study measured a literacy initiative that deployed 2,300 coaches across Florida; results were almost nonexistent) can iron out the flexibility necessary to improve performance among teachers of different skills and specializations.

And coaching works best in school environments that make a lot of room for experimentation and critique. If teachers feel they鈥檙e being unduly attacked, or that required coaching is actually a pretext to document their faults and initiate termination, even the best advice will fall on deaf ears.

鈥淭he potential challenge is those teachers who are experienced, who have been told by those classic, old-style evaluation systems that they are satisfactory, proficient, or even better at their jobs,鈥� Kraft said. 鈥淎nd then someone comes along and says, 鈥榃e want you to participate in this coaching process that鈥檚 going to shine a light on things that someone else thinks you鈥檙e not that good at, but you think you are.鈥� That鈥檚 probably one of the hardest conversations to have as a coach.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.