Remote Coaching via Technology in Rural Schools: Exploring Three Coaching Models

Abstract

Rural schools face unique challenges providing high-quality professional development opportunities due to barriers such as geographic isolation and limited resources. This article provides information on three coaching models, eCoaching, iCoaching, and teacher dyad coaching. Each model has the potential to leverage technology to ameliorate challenges faced by rural schools. eCoaching, a personalized approach using online platforms, allows for tailored professional development, accommodating the distinct needs of educators in remote settings. Similarly, iCoaching, facilitated by a coach using interactive technology, fosters real-time coaching, collaboration, and feedback, empowering teachers in geographically isolated areas. Teacher dyad coaching promotes peer learning and support, enhancing professional growth through co-planning and co-teaching sessions. Coaching using technology addresses potential challenges and offers strategies to overcome potential barriers, ensuring the effective implementation of these coaching approaches. By highlighting the advantages of eCoaching, iCoaching, and teacher dyad coaching, this article serves as a guide for educators to implement technology-enabled coaching methods and underscores the importance of innovative approaches in bridging the professional development to implementation gap while fostering enhanced teaching practices in rural educational settings.

Keywords

iCoaching coaching teacher dyads teacher coaching professional development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berry

A. B.

Gravelle

M. L.

(2018). The benefits and challenges of special education positions in rural settings: Listening to the teachers. Rural Educator, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v34i2.400

Berry

A. B.

Petrin

R. A.

Gravelle

M. L.

Farmer

T. W.

(2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000402

Council for Exceptional Children . (2024). Co-Teaching. https://exceptionalchildren.org/topics/co-teaching

Dieker

L. A.

Murawski

W. W.

(2003). Co-Teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2003.0007

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512

Holbrook

(2017). The Effects of an Online Coaching Model on Secondary Co-teaching Teams in Algebra (Publication No. 5561) [Doctoral Dissertation. University of Central Florida]. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5561

Horn

A. L.

(2021). eCoaching in rural settings when teaching secondary students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 40(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705210227980

Horn

A. L.

Rock

M. L.

(2022). Practice with feedback makes permanent: eCoaching with bug-in-ear technology during clinical experiences. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 2(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.33043/JOSEP.2.1.58-69

Horn

A. L.

Rock

M. L.

Douglas

Bean

Layden

S. L.

Roitsch

(2022). The effects of teacher delivered bug in ear coaching on paraeducators and students. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 57(3), 287–302.

10.

Korner

I. N.

Brown

W. H.

(1952). The mechanical third ear. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16(1), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061630

11.

Magiera

Zigmond

(2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00123.x

12.

Mueller

T. G.

Brewer

R. D.

(2013). Rethinking professional development in rural communities for students with autism spectrum disorder. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(3), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051303200303

13.

Ploessl

D. M.

Rock

M. L.

(2014). eCoaching: The effects on co-teachers’ planning and instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 37(3), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414525049

14.

Pugach

M. C.

Blanton

L. P.

Correa

V. I.

(2011). A historical perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411406141

15.

Randolph

K. M.

Chubb

C. S.

Hott

B. L.

Cruz-Torres

(2021). iCoaching behavior specific praise in a rural classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 40(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F8756870520982302

16.

Randolph

K. M.

Duffy

M. L.

(2019). Using iCoaching to support teachers’ implementation of evidence-based practices. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8(2), 9. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/vol8/iss2/9.

17.

Randolph

K. M.

Duffy

M. L.

Wilson

C. L.

Brady

M. P.

Scheeler

M. C.

(2020). The impact of iCoaching on teacher-delivered opportunities to respond. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836414

18.

Rock

M. L.

Gregg

Thead

B. K.

Acker

S. E.

Gable

R. A.

Zigmond

(2009). Can you hear me now? Evaluation of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback to special education teachers-in-training. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 32(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406408330872

19.

Rude

Miller

K. J.

(2018). Policy challenges and opportunities for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517748662

20.

Scheeler

M. C.

McKinnon

Stout

(2012). Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411401919

21.

Scheeler

M. C.

Ruhl

McAfee

J. K.

(2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 27(4), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640402700407

22.

Sinclair

A. C.

Gesel

S. A.

LeJeune

L. M.

Lemons

C. J.

(2020). A review of the evidence for real-time performance feedback to improve instructional practice. The Journal of Special Education, 54(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919878470

23.

Skyhar

(2020). Thinking outside the box: Providing effective professional development for rural teachers. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 10(1), 42–72. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n1p42-72

24.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) . (2015). 37th annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education Act, 2015. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/2015-annual-report-to-congress.