Recent research has examined the influential role coaches may play in supporting teachers’ collective capacity building for instructional improvement. While emerging research is promising, much remains to be learned about collaborative approaches to coaching, particularly in schools with the greatest opportunity gaps. We draw on extensive longitudinal qualitative data to explore a collaborative approach to coaching in urban middle schools under pressure to improve math outcomes. Findings reveal key coaching strategies to promote teacher team capacity building, including fostering student-centered discussion and collaborative relationships, tailoring capacity-building opportunities to provide access for all teachers, and negotiating across teachers and leaders to support improvement efforts. This work was complicated by conflicting expectations between leaders and teachers as well as challenges with addressing teachers’ misconceptions about math content in group settings. These findings reflect the need for ongoing capacity building that supports coaches as they attend to group dynamics and accountability pressures.
BlazarD. (2020). Teacher coaching to improve instruction at scale: Opportunities and challenges in policy contexts. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–9.
2.
BookerL. N.RussellJ. L. (2022). Improving teaching practice with instructional coaching. EdResearch for Recovery Design Principles Series. EdResearch for Recovery Project.
3.
CampbellP. D.MalkusN. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454.
4.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
5.
ConnorC. M. (2017). Commentary on the special issue on instructional coaching models: Common elements of effective coaching models. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 78–83.
6.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Stanford University and National Council of Staff Development.
7.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2018). Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. Routledge.
8.
DesimoneL. M.PakK. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
9.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71.
10.
FrankeM. L.KazemiE. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.
11.
GardinerW. (2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching: Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195–215.
12.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260.
13.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411–425.
14.
GibbonsL. K.KazemiE.LewisR. M. (2017). Developing collective capacity to improve mathematics instruction: Coaching as a lever for school-wide improvement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 231–250.
15.
HannoE. C. (2022). Immediate changes, trade-offs, and fade-out in high-quality teacher practices during coaching. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 173–185.
16.
HashimA. (2020). Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–44.
17.
HemphillF. C.VannemanA. (2011). Achievement gaps: How hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2011-459. National Center for Education Statistics.
18.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.JakopovicP.HeatonR. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.
19.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.ShirrellM. (2018). Designing educational infrastructures for improvement: Instructional coaching and professional learning communities. In YoonS. A.Baker-DoyleK. J. (Eds.), Networked by design (pp. 192–213). Routledge.
20.
HornI. S.GarnerB.KaneB. D.BraselJ. (2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 41–54.
21.
HornI. S.KaneB. D. (2015). Opportunities for professional learning in mathematics teacher workgroup conversations: Relationships to instructional expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 373–418.
22.
HuguetA.MarshJ. A.FarrellC. (2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(52), 1–31.
23.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
24.
LocktonM. (2019). Deliberating change: Conditions that shape how teachers voice and debate beliefs about instructional reforms. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 4(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2018-0018
25.
LocktonM.WeddleH.DatnowA. (2020). When data don’t drive: Teacher agency in data use efforts in low-performing schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 243–265.
26.
LouieN. L. (2016). Tensions in equity- and reform-oriented learning in teachers’ collaborative conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.001
27.
ManginM. M.DunsmoreK. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213.
28.
MatsumuraL. C.SartorisM.BickelD. D.GarnierH. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693.
29.
MayerA.WoulfinS.WarholL. (2015). Moving the center of expertise: Applying a communities of practice framework to understand coaching in urban school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 101–123.
30.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
31.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
32.
MunterC. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635.
33.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
34.
OwensA.CandipanJ. (2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high-and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197.
35.
ReardonS. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.
36.
RonfeldtM.FarmerS. O.McQueenK.GrissomJ. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514.
37.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
38.
SpillaneJ. P.HopkinsM.SweetT. (2015). Intra- and inter-school interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110.
39.
StollL.BolamR.McMahonA.WallaceM.ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
40.
SuttonP. S.ShouseA. W. (2018). Investigating the role of social status in teacher collaborative groups. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117751125
41.
VangriekenK.DochyF.RaesE.KyndtE. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
42.
VannemanA.HamiltonL.AndersonJ. B.RahmanT. (2009). Achievement gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2009 455. National Center for Education Statistics.
43.
Vedder-WeissD.SegalA.LefsteinA. (2019). Teacher face-work in discussions of video-recorded classroom practice: Constraining or catalyzing opportunities to learn?Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 538–551.
44.
VescioV.RossD.AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
45.
WeddleH. (2020). Teachers’ opportunities to learn through collaboration over time: A case study of math teacher teams in schools under pressure to improve. Teachers College Record, 122(12), 1–40.
46.
WeddleH. (2022). Approaches to studying teacher collaboration for instructional improvement: A review of literature. Educational Research Review, 35, 100415.
47.
WoulfinS. L.JonesB. (2018). Rooted in relationships: An analysis of dimensions of social capital enabling instructional coaching. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(1), 25–38.
48.
WoulfinS. L.RigbyJ. G. (2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323–328.
49.
WoulfinS. L.StevensonI.LordK. (2023). Making coaching matter: Leading continuous improvement in schools. Teachers College Press.
50.
WoulfinS. L. (2018). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–16.
51.
YinR. E. (2018). Case study research and its applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
