9
Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept Linda R. Britton a , Kenneth A. Anderson b, * a University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA b Howard University, School of Education, 24414th St NW, Washington, DC 20059, USA article info Article history: Received 26 October 2007 Received in revised form 14 January 2009 Accepted 17 March 2009 Keywords: Pre-service teachers Peer coaching Student teaching Effective teaching abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of peer coaching on the classroom practices of pre- service teachers. Four teacher interns learned peer coaching functions and techniques before partici- pating in coaching cycles with their peers. Pairs of participants reciprocally observed classes, collected data, and held conferences. Multiple forms of data were collected and analyses reveal that training was adequate. Findings show that peer coaching altered current teaching practices, but a trend of making suggestions for improvement without affirming strengths was also evident. Recommendations for integrating peer coaching in the pre-service curriculum are provided. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. School systems and schools of education across the nation face the daunting and ambiguous task of identifying and defining best practices for improving teacher quality (Cochran-Smith, 2003). As shown by the continuing emergence of alternative and streamlined teacher certification programs, schools of education are charged with preparing pre-service teachers to meet local, state, and federal requirements at record speed, all with the caveat of maintaining quality. Moreover, our personal experiences in education have shown that quality mentoring, coaching, and supervision is at a premium due to competing demands for faculty and supervisor time. Additionally, our experiences have shown that many teachers have not adopted the culture of desiring to receive authentic feedback for continuous improvement; rather a trend towards only desiring to achieve positive evaluations seems to be the norm (see Marshall, 2005 for more on this topic). However, with effective implementation, peer coaching can be used in the pre-service experience to maximize human resources and develop a disposi- tion of collaboration and continuous improvement early on (see Reiman & Johnson, 2003 for more insight on dispositional development). To investigate this concept, we decided to examine the effec- tiveness of integrating a peer coaching component on the teaching practices of pre-service teacher interns. Peer coaching was the professional development approach of choice because we wanted to maximize the human resources available during the pre-service experience and eliminate or reduce the ‘‘performance element’’ associated with being observed by persons of higher authority. Moreover, we wanted students to embrace collaboration with the purpose of improving instruction through collegial relationships, rather than unintentionally promote autonomy through the tradi- tional cycle of assistance whereby the intern only collaborates with the cooperating teacher or University supervisor. To provide insight on our study, this article presents a review of the literature first, components of the study second, and results and recommendations for implementing peer coaching components during the pre- service teacher preparation experience third. 1. Peer coaching Peer coaching is a developmental/reflective model of supervi- sion (Pajak, 2003), largely an offspring of Goldhammer’s (1969) seminal work in clinical supervision. Peer coaching is often iden- tified by various names, including peer mentoring, learning- centered supervision, peer supervision, and cognitive coaching (Pellicer & Anderson, 1995). A major benefit of peer coaching is that it can provide a valuable tool for collaboration, evaluate teacher effectiveness, and improve teacher quality (Marshall, 2005). Key components of peer coaching include refraining from offering too much advice and shifting the focus to self analysis, self regulation, mutual support, growth, and reciprocal learning (Costa & Garm- ston, 2002; Sagor, 1997; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Wynn & Kromrey, 2000). Benefits of peer coaching can be maximized if used for educator growth rather than formal evaluation (Marshall, 2005) * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 202 806 6703; fax: þ1 202 806 5297. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.A. Anderson). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008 Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314

Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

Linda R. Britton a, Kenneth A. Anderson b,*

a University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USAb Howard University, School of Education, 2441 4th St NW, Washington, DC 20059, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 October 2007Received in revised form14 January 2009Accepted 17 March 2009

Keywords:Pre-service teachersPeer coachingStudent teachingEffective teaching

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 202 806 6703; faxE-mail address: [email protected] (K.A. A

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of peer coaching on the classroom practices of pre-service teachers. Four teacher interns learned peer coaching functions and techniques before partici-pating in coaching cycles with their peers. Pairs of participants reciprocally observed classes, collecteddata, and held conferences. Multiple forms of data were collected and analyses reveal that training wasadequate. Findings show that peer coaching altered current teaching practices, but a trend of makingsuggestions for improvement without affirming strengths was also evident. Recommendations forintegrating peer coaching in the pre-service curriculum are provided.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

School systems and schools of education across the nation facethe daunting and ambiguous task of identifying and defining bestpractices for improving teacher quality (Cochran-Smith, 2003). Asshown by the continuing emergence of alternative and streamlinedteacher certification programs, schools of education are chargedwith preparing pre-service teachers to meet local, state, and federalrequirements at record speed, all with the caveat of maintainingquality. Moreover, our personal experiences in education haveshown that quality mentoring, coaching, and supervision is ata premium due to competing demands for faculty and supervisortime. Additionally, our experiences have shown that many teachershave not adopted the culture of desiring to receive authenticfeedback for continuous improvement; rather a trend towards onlydesiring to achieve positive evaluations seems to be the norm (seeMarshall, 2005 for more on this topic). However, with effectiveimplementation, peer coaching can be used in the pre-serviceexperience to maximize human resources and develop a disposi-tion of collaboration and continuous improvement early on (seeReiman & Johnson, 2003 for more insight on dispositionaldevelopment).

To investigate this concept, we decided to examine the effec-tiveness of integrating a peer coaching component on the teachingpractices of pre-service teacher interns. Peer coaching was theprofessional development approach of choice because we wantedto maximize the human resources available during the pre-service

: þ1 202 806 5297.nderson).

All rights reserved.

experience and eliminate or reduce the ‘‘performance element’’associated with being observed by persons of higher authority.Moreover, we wanted students to embrace collaboration with thepurpose of improving instruction through collegial relationships,rather than unintentionally promote autonomy through the tradi-tional cycle of assistance whereby the intern only collaborates withthe cooperating teacher or University supervisor. To provide insighton our study, this article presents a review of the literature first,components of the study second, and results and recommendationsfor implementing peer coaching components during the pre-service teacher preparation experience third.

1. Peer coaching

Peer coaching is a developmental/reflective model of supervi-sion (Pajak, 2003), largely an offspring of Goldhammer’s (1969)seminal work in clinical supervision. Peer coaching is often iden-tified by various names, including peer mentoring, learning-centered supervision, peer supervision, and cognitive coaching(Pellicer & Anderson, 1995). A major benefit of peer coaching is thatit can provide a valuable tool for collaboration, evaluate teachereffectiveness, and improve teacher quality (Marshall, 2005). Keycomponents of peer coaching include refraining from offering toomuch advice and shifting the focus to self analysis, self regulation,mutual support, growth, and reciprocal learning (Costa & Garm-ston, 2002; Sagor, 1997; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Wynn & Kromrey,2000). Benefits of peer coaching can be maximized if used foreducator growth rather than formal evaluation (Marshall, 2005)

Page 2: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314 307

and considering the high levels of anxiety typically associated withformal evaluation and pre-service teachers, peer coaching in pre-service education can be a viable supplement to traditionalsupervision.

The use of peer coaching has evolved over the years, with majorcontributions from Showers and Joyce (1996) among others. Thisevolution has resulted in a number of components recognized asstandard elements necessary for the peer coaching process.Establishing trust is a major component of peer coaching as it oftenfacilitates adult learning (Costa & Garmston, 2002) and is essentialto maximizing potential of other components of peer coaching(Kettle & Sellars, 1996). Collaboration, another critical componentof peer coaching, frequently appears in discussions and studiesrelated to the growth and development of classroom teachers. Infact, a report from the Southern Regional Education Board (2005)touted the effectiveness of creating opportunities for sharedlearning among teachers, and these opportunities for pre-servicecollaboration can occur through peer coaching (Bowman &McCormick, 2000). Conferencing, a third component of peercoaching, is essential to the process as well. Conferencing offersopportunities for partners to receive feedback before and after aninstructional event occurs through clarification, questioning, andlistening (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Jenkins, Hamrick, & Todorovich,2002). Additionally, conferences are more effective when data,rather than opinions, is used to draw conclusions from findings.Therefore, observations with data collection are a fourth keycomponent of peer coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Lam, Yim, &Lam, 2002). Finally, analysis and reflection, a hallmark of peercoaching is critical to the peer coaching process as it allows thelearner to process the data, alter practices, build efficacy, self assess,develop a professional culture, identify issues, deepen under-standing, and challenge ideas (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Ferraro,2000; Proctor, Rentz, & Jackson, 2001).

2. Purpose

A number of studies have been conducted on the use of peercoaching in pre-service education (see Ferraro, 2000; Hasbrouck,1997; Kettle & Sellars, 1996; Yopp & Guillaume, 1999). However, fewstudies link peer coaching to the practices of pre-service teachers.Therefore, we decided to explore the effects of peer coaching and itsinfluence in altering or affirming practices for pre-service teachers.Our study addressed this void in the literature by examining theprimary research question: Are teacher intern practices alteredand/or affirmed by participating in peer coaching exercises duringthe internship semester?

3. Method

The setting for this study was a large high school in a south-eastern region of the United States with approximately 1900racially and economically diverse students in grades 9–12. This sitehosted pre-service teachers for initial teaching certification,working in partnership with the School of Education at a localUniversity. Hereafter, the pseudonym ‘‘Harvest High School’’ iden-tifies the site school.

3.1. Procedures

University supervisors expected intern teachers to attend atleast four on-site seminars during the intern semester. In tandemwith her thesis project, the primary author, who is also site coor-dinator for the School–University partnership, conducted one ofthe on-site seminars in March 2006. At this instructional seminar,the eight pre-service teachers at Harvest High were informed of the

purposes, principles, and mechanics of peer coaching and wereprovided written instructions intended to enhance understandingof the peer coaching process. Opportunities were also provided forthe eight interns to ask questions and discuss issues pertinent tothe peer coaching process.

At the conclusion of the seminar, details of the proposed studywere explained and interns were presented an opportunity tovolunteer for the study. After several days, written invitations to jointhe study were sent. Four interns agreed and four declined toparticipate. The assenting participants included one male and threefemale interns. Each participant was between the ages of 21 and 25and was assigned the pseudonyms Amanda, Brooke, Charles, andDana. During the internship semester, Amanda taught social studies,Brooke and Dana each taught English, and Charles taught science.The study was conducted between March and late April of 2006.

Interns were paired based on several factors. Brooke and Danainterned in the same discipline and expressed an interest inworking with each other. Amanda and Charles did not expresspreferences for pairing, but knew each other from previous inter-actions at the University. Intending to use these common bonds toaccelerate the building of trusting relationships, grouping Brookewith Dana and Amanda with Charles made the most sense.Participants were given written notification of the pairings alongwith suggestions for implementing the conferences, observations,and reflections.

At the outset of the study, each participant was told that theywould be expected to engage in a pre-observation conference witha peer, observe a lesson taught by a peer, collect data during theobservation of a peer, present the data to the coaching partner, andprovide an opportunity for the coaching partner to assess the dataand consider its implications for instruction. Likewise, participantsunderstood that they would repeat this series of activities as theperson being observed. Participant pairs communicated in personor by e-mail to schedule times to pre-conference, observe, andpost-conference.

3.2. Data collection

Following the completion of the peer coaching activities, stan-dardized interviews were conducted and audio-taped. In a mannerrecommended by Patton (2002) for standardized open-endedinterviews, wording and questions were determined in advance.Participants were free to elaborate or curtail their responses, butthis pattern of questioning enhanced our ability to organize thedata and compare responses (Patton, 2002). Interview questionswere developed to gain understanding and document key elementsof peer coaching previously established in the literature review.Furthermore, we attempted to elicit responses that might provideinsight on whether or not classroom practices had been affirmed oraltered. In addition, we designed some questions to evaluate overallcomments on the peer coaching experience (see Appendix A).

In an attempt to reduce anxiety and enrich the responses,participants were provided a copy of the interview questionsbeforehand. With the exception of extemporaneous questionsposed to clarify responses, the same sequence of interview ques-tions was used for each participant. Participants completed (inwriting or by e-mail) five additional reflection questions to reit-erate, in an abbreviated form, the general content of the interviewquestions (see Appendix B). Copies of the raw data gathered duringeach peer observation were collected as well.

Audio-taped interviews were transcribed and fillers such as‘‘uh’’, ‘‘okay’’, ‘‘like’’, ‘‘you know’’, etc. were eliminated. Copies ofeach transcript were sent to the participants for verification ofcontent. In an accompanying cover letter, participants wereinformed that their responses would be evaluated for content and

Page 3: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

Table 1Data relevant to adequate training for peer coaching.

Interns Responses associated with training and preparation

Amanda Q3: ‘‘We did a review of what the peer coaching was’’Q11: ‘‘I thought he was pretty well trained.’’

Brooke Q3: ‘‘Your directions were really clear and really step-by-step, so weknew exactly what we had to do. There were no questions aboutwhat we had to do to be a peer coach.’’Q4: ‘‘your directions were really, really clear’’Q10: ‘‘I was kinda on the roll with peer coaching, knew what it wasall about, knew what I was looking for.’’

Charles Q3: ‘‘So I felt like I was prepared for it.’’

Dana Q3: ‘‘So I definitely felt prepared.’’Q11: ‘‘I definitely felt that Brooke knew what she was doing.’’

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314308

meaning only and not for grammatical or structural content. Brookeand Charles replied by e-mail that the transcriptions were accurateand indicated they did not wish to make any changes in theirresponses. However, Dana made several handwritten grammaticaland structural changes on the transcribed copy of her interview.The changes she indicated did not alter the meaning or intent of heroriginal responses, but were accepted and subsequently changed asrequested. Amanda completed the audio-taped interview but didnot respond to the reflection questions. Despite multiple efforts tocontact her by mail, e-mail, and telephone, Amanda did notrespond to additional requests to verify her interview responses orto complete the reflection questions. Consequently, Amandacontributed only unverified responses to the interview questionsand raw data from her peer observation.

3.3. Data analysis

Following an analysis sequence recommended by Glatthorn(1998), transcribed interviews and written reflection questionswere read ‘‘to tentatively identify categories of responses’’ (p. 161).Using inductive analysis techniques suggested by Patton (2002), weexamined ‘‘the details and specifics of the data to discover impor-tant patterns, themes, and interrelationships’’ (p. 41). Quotes frominterviews and information gleaned from reflection questions wereused to indicate the apparent patterns in the data. Data relevant tokey elements of peer coaching (trust building, conferencing,observation and data collection, and analysis and reflection) wasretained. Having identified themes and patterns consistent withthe purpose of the study, transcriptions, reflections, and raw datafrom observations were repeatedly examined to confirm the finalindicators for categorizing responses. The primary rationale behindusing this analytic technique was to ensure fidelity of the peercoaching process and investigate the effectiveness of peer coachingby searching for indicators that affirmed or altered the practices ofpre-service teachers.

4. Results

Prior to presenting results of this study, data indicatingconceptual and implementation fidelity is presented. Thereafter,indicators of affirmation and alteration of teaching practices arepresented. Additionally, recurrent, yet noteworthy themes beyondthe purpose of the study will be presented.

4.1. Conceptual and implementation fidelity

To enhance the credibility of our claims regarding peer coaching,we found it necessary to assess the participants’ experience withthe coaching process, conceptual understanding of the purpose ofpeer coaching, and the adequacy of the training provided.Responses to interview questions are noted with sequentialnumbers 1 through 25. At times, the letter ‘‘Q’’ and the number ofthe interview or reflection question are used to identify the originof each response displayed in the tables. Numbers 1–5, preceded byan ‘‘R’’, represent responses to reflection questions. Questions 1, 4,and 10 were used to gather data relevant to participant under-standing of the purpose of peer coaching.

4.2. Previous experience with peer coaching

After analyzing the responses for question statement 2, discussany experiences you had with peer coaching prior to participatingin this study, we found that no participants had engaged in peercoaching, although each person had experienced other types ofpeer interactions. Amanda had observed other teachers but had not

‘‘made reports back to them’’. Brooke had participated in peerobservations, but specified, ‘‘Not the coaching aspect, but just thepeer observations’’. Charles described being engaged in ‘‘peerinteractions between each other where we’ve given criticisms andgood reviews of other people’s work.’’ He followed that descriptionby musing, ‘‘I don’t guess you’d call that peer coaching.’’ Danastated, ‘‘Before this study I had never peer coached, and it wasactually just the first time I had observed anyone while I was doingstudent teaching.’’

4.3. Purpose and adequacy of training

Question 1 specifically asked for an explanation of each partic-ipant’s understanding of the purpose of peer coaching. Amandadescribed the purpose of peer coaching by saying, ‘‘I would say peercoaching is having a teacher peer come into your classroom, givethem [the observer] a specific problem that you may be having ora concern to look at and make observations for you.’’ Brooke’sdescription included the statement, ‘‘I think peer coaching is toteach and learn from somebody who is at the same level.the samesituation that you’re in.’’ Charles described going into anotherteacher’s classroom, talking to the teacher beforehand, and givinghelp and advice on a specific problem identified by the teacher. Ina manner similar to Charles, Dana identified elements to beaddressed by the peer coaching process, including ‘‘figuring outwhat issues you’re having problems with, using observations topinpoint those problems, and finding solutions.’’

Question 4 asked participants if they understood the purpose ofpeer coaching prior to observing a peer, whereas, Question 10 askedparticipants if they thought their peer partners understood peercoaching. Each participant responded affirmatively with someelaboration. Dana’s responses to Question 25 and R-1 revealedadditional relevant data as she stated peer coaching is ‘‘just genu-inely something to help you improve as a teacher, and that’s theonly goal.’’ Additionally, Dana wrote, ‘‘The sole purpose was toimprove specific things in my classroom.’’

A third preliminary consideration in the data analysis wasfocused on the training provided for peer coaching. Question 3 askedparticipants to assess the adequacy of their own preparation for peercoaching. Each participant reported feeling prepared to coach a peer.In response to question 11, all participants again responded affir-matively, indicating that their peer coaches were adequatelyprepared to coach. Table 1 shows additional comments relevant tothe adequacy of training for this peer coaching experience.

4.4. Key elements of peer coaching

In the literature review, we established key elements that arecrucial to the peer coaching process. Thus, we inspected the data for

Page 4: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

Table 3Conferencing in peer coaching.

Interns Responses associated with conferencing

Amanda Q3: ‘‘the person that I observed, the person that observed me, I hadthem go over everything with me about what I wanted them to look for’’Q5: ‘‘We e-mailed back and forth about what we needed one another tolook at’’

Brooke Q5: ‘‘We actually set up a little what we were gonna do.so the personknew what to look for’’Q6: ‘‘Dana decided what she wanted me to look for in her class’’Q12: ‘‘I told my peer observer what I was going to be doing and what Iwanted her to look for’’

Charles Q1: ‘‘we’re to go into another classroom, that we have talked to theteacher beforehand’’Q3: ‘‘We talked beforehanddnot talked, we did it through e-mails’’Q4: ‘‘we came back together and talked about it again’’Q5: ‘‘We communicated through e-mails’’Q11: ‘‘We were communicating through e-mails’’Q12: ‘‘Through e-mails’’

Dana Q3: ‘‘before I went and observed her we talked about several differentissues that she was having’’Q5: ‘‘We both sat down and kinda talked about several different issueswe were having and what issues would be a good thing to do the peercoaching’’

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314 309

comments relevant to each of those key elements. Additionalthemes beyond the key elements are presented as well.

4.5. Trusting relationships

Data was examined for comments indicating the building ofrelationships. As noted in Table 2, data associated with relationshipdevelopment was sparse. Despite limitations in scope, these dataare presented in table form to facilitate comparison with data forthe other key elements examined.

4.6. Conferencing

Questions 5 and 12 were included to determine if participantsengaged in pre-observation conferences prior to data collection.Each peer coach answered both questions affirmatively. Amandaand Charles conducted pre-conferences through e-mail, and Brookeand Dana described conducting face-to-face pre-conferences. Table3 displays additional comments relevant to conferencing, notlimited to the pre-conference.

4.7. Observations and data collection

Amanda, Brooke, Charles, and Dana each accumulated raw dataas they observed their peers. Amanda collected data using a list ofstudent names and their off-task behaviours. Charles also recordedoff-task behaviours, electing to list the behaviours chronologically.Brooke and Dana each used a seating chart to collect data. Brookefocused on the order that Dana answered questions, and Danamarked the nature of student responses.

Themes relevant to observations and data collection werecollected through interviews and reflection data. We originallyposed question 7 to help determine how the data collected duringobservations was interpreted. Amanda replied,

I was supposed to look at students who were talking out in classand what they were talking about and when the teacher calledon them or interrupted them and told them to be quiet. I justlooked at a seating chart, I made myself familiar with where thestudents were sitting and kept a running tally of who wastalking, what it was about, and what time it was.

In a similar manner, Brooke also discussed observations anddata collection in question 7. She responded,

She wanted me to watch the order in which she answeredquestions; . she wanted me to see if she went to the people inthe right order by when they raised their hand. Did she go tothem first or did she go to someone who raised their hand after?So I just put little symbols down on their seating chart if sheanswered the question right as they answered [asked] it or if sheskipped them.

Commenting on the overall process of observing a peer to collectdata, Charles responded to question 24 by saying ‘‘I think it’s a verygood thing mainly because of the fact that you’re looking at oneproblem in your class and you’re not observing the teacher, you’re

Table 2Data relevant to establishing trusting relationships in peer coaching.

Interns Comments relevant to building relationships

Amanda NoneBrooke Q3: ‘‘over the internship we’ve gotten to know each other so I felt really

comfortable with her’’Charles NoneDana Q18: ‘‘I felt very comfortable with her because she’s my age, she’s

a peer’’

observing a problem and that problem is given to you by theteacher.’’ He reiterated this opinion in his response to question R-1,stating, ‘‘Peer coaching is great for focusing on just one problem.Most observations look at the class as [a] whole, but peer coachinglooks at one problem that the teacher being observed has identi-fied.’’ Additional responses associated with observations and datacollection appear in Table 4.

4.8. Analysis and reflection

The original purpose of question 14 was to examine the roles ofpeer coaches in the analysis process. Brooke succinctly describedhow she analyzed and reflected on the data collected by her peercoach. She reflected,

It was pretty informative, really. After I got my thing back and Ilooked at it I saw what kids I wanted to really focus on and notanswer their questions until they raised their hands and askwith the right procedure. I saw what kids already have thatdown. They know how to raise their hand and I don’t have toworry about them. So I kinda saw the problem areas of certainstudents more than others that just shout things out.

Table 5 displays additional comments associated with analysisand reflection.

4.9. Affirmation and alteration of practices

Although each intern contributed data implying an affirmationof personal feelings about his/her teaching, there was no data toindicate affirmation of practices. Therefore, this section includesonly data relevant to affirmation of personal feelings. In response toquestion 20, Amanda reflected on her feelings after observing herpeer teach a lesson. She commented, ‘‘Watching the other teacherand how he conducted himself, I felt that I was actually doing prettymuch the same as him, which felt pretty good’’. Brooke madea similar remark in response to question 17, saying, ‘‘It made youfeel better about yourself to watch somebody else.’’ She reiterateda similar sentiment in response to question 20, stating, ‘‘I saw thesame problems that I have, she has, and [that] made me feel like,‘Okay, it’s not just me’’’. Charles’ contribution to this line of thoughtwas, ‘‘It made me think that most classrooms are pretty much the

Page 5: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

Table 5Data analysis and reflection in peer coaching.

Intern Responses associated with data analysis and reflection

Amanda Q8: ‘‘I went back through it afterwards and noticed that one student wasjust talking a lot about nothing during the whole time that I was in there.’’Q9: ‘‘After I did this I was a lot more aware of who I was calling on andwho wasn’t talking or who was talking just all the time.’’

Brooke Q8: ‘‘I pointed out areas where I saw that she skipped people or was realgood with answering their questions immediately.’’Q9: ‘‘I kinda put myself in her situation, where I was like, ‘Do I do thesame thing that she does, like skip people?’’’

Charles Q4: ‘‘we came back together and talked about it again.’’Q7: ‘‘I guess she knew where her problem was, and I guess it just helpedher concentrate on it more and then be more aware of how shereprimanded her students and how she called people down.’’Q14: ‘‘the main thing I wanted to see was make sure that I was treatingeverybody fairly when I would call them down or talk to them. And I sawwhere in some instances it was fair and in others I could improve on [it]’’

Dana Q1: ‘‘it allows you to.find solutions to those problems’’Q8: ‘‘when we discussed it afterwards I didn’t just give her the seatingchart back. We really went through and I explained what symbols I used,what that meant, and how I really saw where the problems were.’’Q9: ‘‘addressing questions when students don’t raise their hand wassomething that I actually hadn’t ever thought about’’Q14: ‘‘After the observation she sat down and showed medshe hadmade notes on my seating chart and they were just shorthandeddso shewent through and explained what each one of them meant.’’Q15: ‘‘we both went through and kinda discussed what she had seen andhow we could change that.’’

Table 4Data relevant to observations and data collection in peer coaching.

Intern Responses associated with observations and data collection

Amanda Q1: ‘‘Give them a specific problem that you may be having or a concernto look at and make observations for you’’Q6: ‘‘The other peer intern that was observing me was responsible forcollecting it. And I collected data watching his class.’’Q12: ‘‘I told him that I wanted him to look for students who were notparticipating in the class, they’re not paying attention to the lecture’’

Brooke Q4: ‘‘we understood how we had to pick a certain aspect of the class thatwe wanted to observe’’Q5: ‘‘we decided what kind of thing we were gonna analyze so theperson knew what to look for. We got our seating charts all set andswitched them before we did the observation’’Q6: ‘‘We talked about what I would do, what I would mark down on thepaper.’’Q12: ‘‘She had my seating chart and it went well.’’Q13: ‘‘I came up with the idea of what I wanted to do.. So I just wantedto see who actually raises their hand.’’

Charles Q1: ‘‘it’s not to be a broad problem but a very specific problem that she’shaving problems with’’Q4: ‘‘We set down what we wanted to look for and we looked for it, andfound some instances where it happened.’’Q11: ‘‘we determined what we were going to look for and then we wereready to go. We set times up and seating charts’’Q24: ‘‘you’re looking at one problem in your class and you’re notobserving the teacher, you’re observing a problem and that problem isgiven to you by the teacher.’’Q25: ‘‘And it can be beneficial to both the observer and the observeebecause the observer sees how you handle the class the way you do andwhile they’re observing they can pick up things.’’Q25: ‘‘they [peer observers] also see another viewpoint of how to workwith a problem or even see where the problem’s coming from’’

Dana Q1: ‘‘have someone observe you and pinpoint what those problems are’’Q3: ‘‘we just pinpointed one that we really thought, ‘Well this will bea good thing to observe, this is how I could observe it’’’Q6: ‘‘I was responsible for actually writing the data. She gave mea seating chart and that was how I was able to collect the data while shewas teaching’’Q13: ‘‘She wrote down the data as I was teaching.’’

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314310

same. You know, problems I have in my classroom, other teachersare having in theirs.’’ In his answer to question 22, Charles alsocommented, ‘‘It helped me feel better’’. Dana stated in her responseto question 20, ‘‘Having somebody else see me in action and gettingpositive feedback from them I think definitely boosted myconfidence.’’

In contrast to the lack of data on affirmation of practices, dataassociated with practice alteration occurred frequently throughoutresponses to the interview and reflection questions. Question 23specifically asked participants if peer coaching altered their prac-tices. Amanda did not answer affirmatively or negatively, butresponded by describing how she rearranged student seating.Brooke’s response was ‘‘not really’’, but data in Table 6 suggestsotherwise. Both Charles and Dana responded affirmatively toquestion 23, indicating that peer coaching altered their practices.Table 6 displays evidences of alteration of practice detected in thedata.

Table 6Alteration of practices.

Intern Responses associated with altering practices

Amanda Q19: ‘‘I started moving around the classroom more to see what’s going onI the back’’Q23: ‘‘Just the movement in the classroom, moving students that were inthe back of the class forward to get them more involved’’.

Brooke Q9: ‘‘It kinda put me in her shoes, and I applied it to my own classroomand what would do with the same kind of issues.’’Q15: ‘‘I looked at it and kinda realized what students I want to focus onmore for my following lessons’’Q16: ‘‘Just made me realize how I want to be more strict and have moreuniform rules for raising your hand and having me call on you and not putup with people just shouting things out whenever they want to.’’Q19: ‘‘just trying to have kids raise their hand when they havea question’’Q19: ‘‘So I tried to have a good lesson and look like a good teacher.’’Q21: ‘‘Having your peer there definitely made me more focused and havemore desire to have a really good lesson.’’Q23 ‘‘But having someone there kinda changed my enthusiasm and theway I constructed the classroom a little bit more.’’QR-3: ‘‘I feel like I tried extra hard that day to run a great class’’

Charles Q7: ‘‘it helped her with asking them questions or asking them questionsabout notes or stuff they were taking’’Q9: ‘‘maybe by talking to them it can help me figure out better ways to setmy classroom up or even deal with problems.’’Q16: ‘‘I wanted to try harder at that [treating all students fairly], and Ithink it made me recognize more where that wasn’t taking place and towhich students and then I tried to fix that.’’Q19: ‘‘it let me recognize where I wasn’t doing that [treating all studentsfairly] and to whom I wasn’t doing it’’.Q21: ‘‘when you fix a problem that really messes with you.when you fixthose problems you’re just happier’’Q23: ‘‘It made me start calling more on students that I would normally,especially the ones that were the talkative bunch. That way when theyfigured out that I was going to start calling on them, they started payingattention a little more and stopped talking.’’QR-3: ‘‘Peer coaching helped me treat all of my students the same. I didnot know if I was calling students down for talking the same or if somewere getting away with talk more than others. I started calling studentsdown for talk and did it the same way for all.’’

Dana Q9: ‘‘So it definitely affected me because after I saw her and really tooknotice of that [students not raising hands to be recognized] I startedtaking notice of it in my own classroom.’’Q16: ‘‘It definitely had an impact because the issue that we were lookingat was something that I had tried to improve on as I’ve been studentteaching, and after she kinda really showed me what I was doing I wasreally able to be conscious of it and try to make changes.’’Q19: ‘‘so I definitely afterwards have tried to be a lot more aware of whenI do that, ‘‘Just a minute, I’ll be with you!’’ I tried to go in order and be fairabout the way I address questions in class.’’Q23: ‘‘It helped me figure out how can I delay that question so I can finishmy thought without blowing off their question. So I definitely was able towork on that.’’

Page 6: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314 311

4.10. Negative outcomes

Questions 18 and R-2 addressed negative aspects or outcomes ofthe study. In response to question 18, Amanda, Brooke, and Danaeach commented that they had no frustrations or disappointmentswith the peer coaching process. However, Charles expresseda personal concern. Asserting that he was able to predict theoutcome of the data analysis, Charles said, ‘‘I guess I was frustratedbecause I knew what the data was going to say. That’s why I wasfrustrated.’’

Question R-2 asked participants to discuss any negative aspectsof the coaching experience. Amanda and Dana did not respond tothis question and therefore did not contribute data. Brooke stated,‘‘I can’t say anything negative about it. Everything was a positive.’’Charles replied, ‘‘One thing with any observation [is] students seemto act better and it is hard to see the problem when that happens.’’

Question R-4 gave participants an opportunity to discuss whytheir practices may have remained unaltered. Brooke replied, ‘‘Theoverall data I collected didn’t really alter my teaching practices.’’However, this answer is inconsistent with other responses fromBrooke (see Table 6). Charles responded that his peer coachingexperience ‘‘changed [his] teaching practice in the area [he] wasbeing coached’’, a response that is incongruent with the question.Dana did not respond to this question.

4.11. Future use of peer coaching

Question 24 addressed this theme directly by asking partici-pants if they would be interested in participating in peer coachingagain. Each respondent replied affirmatively. Amanda added, ‘‘I’dhave them look at other things.’’ Brooke said, ‘‘I will definitely do itagain’’, a sentiment that was repeated by Charles and Dana. Danaspecified that she would use peer coaching ‘‘in another semesterwith other students and in dealing with different issues, becauseeach class comes with its own issues.’’ Also addressing the theme ofusing peer coaching again, question 17 asked participants how peercoaching might be useful to them in the future. Neither Amandanor Brooke offered possibilities for future use. Instead, Amandaexplained that being an observer in another classroom wasenlightening, and Brooke discussed several aspects of the processthat she liked. Charles explained that he could easily teach anotherteacher to come into his classroom to observe him and to assist himin solving classroom issues. Dana echoed Charles’ ideas, remarkingthat she might enlist a peer coach to help solve classroom problemsinstead of always relying on a formal administrative observation.

4.12. Anxiety

Anxiety level was addressed frequently. In response to questions17 and 25, Brooke noted that she felt relaxed and the process wasdevoid of ‘‘any sort of pressure’’. In question 25 she commented,‘‘We’re always having, you know, big scary adults come in and watchyou and the pressure’s on.. It was really, really, way more relaxed.’’She continued to expound on this theme in her answer to questionR-3 by saying she felt very comfortable teaching in front of her peer.In response to question 25, Dana commented that peer coaching is‘‘a really relaxed feeling’’. In her reflection Dana also noted, ‘‘Therewas not pressure from my peer coach.’’ Dana concluded herresponse to question R-5 by saying, ‘‘It is a very stress-free way tolook at concerns you are having about your classroom.’’

4.13. Ease of implementation

Another theme that evolved from the data was the ease ordifficulty of implementing peer coaching. Responding to question

18, Brooke commented twice on this theme, saying, ‘‘It was realeasy to set up’’ and ‘‘It was very simple and very informative, too.’’On different occasions, Brooke asserted, ‘‘Peer coaching was easy tocoordinate. My partner and I had to do minimal preparation to takepart in the experience. It hardly required any planning.’’ QuestionR-5 gave Brooke a final opportunity to say, ‘‘It required no planningor work for me, which was great.’’ In his response to question 25,Charles described peer coaching by stating, ‘‘It’s simple and can beexplained really, really easily.’’ His response to question R-5 was, ‘‘Itis very easy to teach others how to do it.’’

4.14. Importance of peer perspectives

Data indicated that participating interns compared peercoaching to being observed by a supervisor. Brooke responded toquestion 17 by saying she ‘‘liked watching someone my age versuswatching someone who has like a million years of experience’’.Dana reported in her answer to question 20 that she enjoyed havingfeedback from someone other than her supervising teacher. Inquestion R-1 Dana responded, ‘‘I liked being able to focus on thatrather than on a grade or an administrator’s critique.’’ In herresponse to question 25, Dana remarked, ‘‘It wasn’t like whensomeone comes from UNCW and is determining whether you’regetting an ‘‘Aþ’’ or a ‘‘B’’ or keeping your job or being criticized.’’Participants also mentioned their level of satisfaction with the peercoaching process. Brooke stated very succinctly in her answer toquestion R-5, ‘‘I thought the peer coaching process was fun.’’ Inresponse to question 25 Charles said he ‘‘really enjoyed learningabout it’’.

Other notable comments emphasizing the importance of peersaddressed collegiality and camaraderie. Brooke asserted in ques-tion R-1, ‘‘When I watched Dana, I was happy to see that herstudents talked without permission too!’’ Charles commented inquestion R-5, ‘‘I think this is a great way for teachers to help eachother.’’ Dana enjoyed seeing Brooke transition ‘‘from how she is asa ‘regular person’ to a teacher, which is something we’ve both beendealing with this semester’’.

5. Discussion

The primary focus of this study was to examine the effects ofpeer coaching on the teaching practices of the participants. Resultsindicate that peer coaching is a process that is simple to teach, easyto learn, and positively viewed by the participants. In addition,results indicate that pre-service teachers engaged in peer coachingare able to conduct effective conferences, collect data on classroompractices, synthesize findings, and positively alter those practices.

5.1. Conceptual and implementation fidelity

Comments from participants indicated that none of the partic-ipants had previously engaged in peer coaching as defined in thisstudy. Therefore, we can infer that the results can be attributedprimarily to the training and support utilized in this study. Thisinference was supported by the evidence gathered to ensureparticipants understood the purpose of the peer coaching process.When asked to explain the purpose of peer coaching, each interngave a statement explaining the peer coaching process. Usingdifferent terminology, each participant clearly highlighted some ofthe key elements associated with peer coaching. In addition, allinterns responded affirmatively when specifically asked if theyunderstood the peer coaching process.

After searching for basic understanding of the peer coachingprocess, we also examined the data to find evidence that partici-pants felt adequately trained to peer coach. Adequate training was

Page 7: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314312

a concern because the training for this study included only oneformal session, followed by written instructions and reminders. Inquestions posed to examine the adequacy and clarity of training,participant beliefs about their ability and their partner’s ability topeer coach were affirmed in the interviews. However, since we didnot find evidence of teacher affirmation (meaning peers encour-aging teachers to continue to use a certain practice because itworked well), but only found evidence that teacher practices werealtered (recommendations for changing practices) we concludethat our training may not have adequately addressed the impor-tance of affirming the successes of teachers.

Additionally, the limited classroom experiences of the partici-pants may have minimized feedback related to affirmation, as manyof the teachers may not have a good sense of what works well inclassrooms (Hasbrouck, 1997). Besides, we feel that affirmation ofpractice is important for teacher retention and efficacy. Simply put,teachers need a ‘‘pat on the back’’ as well as constructive criticism;hence affirmation should be more directly emphasized in trainingin the future.

We also examined the data for evidence of the key elements ofpeer coaching to help determine progression from understandingthe theory of peer coaching to putting that understanding intopractice. A search for themes relevant to the key elements of peercoaching revealed a number of findings. First, the evidence sug-gesting that trusting relationships were established was evidentbut sparse. Thus, more time on relationship-building activitiesshould be incorporated in the future. Furthermore, proximity topeers, common planning periods and disciplines may have madea difference in the relationships established in this study. Brookeand Dana taught on the same hallway, shared planning periods, andtaught in the same discipline, whereas Amanda and Charles did notshare any of these commonalities. These commonalities may havefacilitated relationship-building opportunities for Brooke and Danabeyond the conditions created in the study.

Second, we were able to document that all of the three majorcomponents (pre-conference, observation, and post-conference)actually occurred from the evidence collected throughout thestudy. We especially focused on the pre-conference as we believethe pre-conference is an important component that is often skip-ped. Examination of that data revealed that all participantscompleted a pre-conference, but used different approaches to doso. One group decided to conference electronically, and one decidedto interact on a face-to-face basis. While we did not specificallyexamine the implications of either technique, future studies shouldexamine the benefits and challenges of each.

Third, examination of data yielded demonstrative evidencerelevant to analysis and reflection. Each participant contributedmultiple comments indicative of analysis and reflection on theobservation data. Overall, with the exception of building trustingrelationships, there was ample evidence in the data to indicate thatparticipants successfully implemented key elements of peer coach-ing as they participated in this study. Other elements that should beemphasized in the future are projection to future instructionalevents and, more importantly, student outcomes. Our study includedonly one coaching cycle; therefore no evidence was obtained on howthis analysis and reflection projected to future instruction. Likewise,we felt that our study did a solid job of generating positive resultsrelated to affect and teacher behaviours, two important elements ofteacher retention. Future studies should make more connections toaffect, teacher behaviour, and student outcomes.

5.2. Satisfaction with peer coaching

Satisfaction with the peer coaching experience was evident inseveral ways throughout the study. Each participant communicated

a desire to use peer coaching again, and each person stated that theprocess could be useful in the future. Brooke and Dana eachremarked that peer coaching was easy to understand and toimplement. In addition, Brooke commented that peer coaching wasfun, and Charles stated he ‘‘enjoyed learning about it’’. Therefore, itseems likely that a satisfying peer coaching process might increasethe potential to achieve its goals. Kettle and Sellars (1996)concluded that positive peer interaction ‘‘models for students theprocess of collaborative professional development which mayencourage them [student teachers] to continue such collaborationwith colleagues when they become teachers’’ (p. 23). Thus, anadditional benefit of peer coaching might be the extension of peercollaboration into the actual teaching career. Hence, future modelsfor peer coaching should include components during pre-servicetraining but should also provide follow-up support for peercollaboration during the in-service years.

Finally, over and again data indicated that interns liked the peercoaching process because it was ‘‘stress-free’’ and it afforded theman opportunity to communicate with and observe their peers.Participants who compared peer observations to observations byuniversity instructors or supervising classroom teachers indicatedthat they particularly enjoyed receiving feedback from their peersand enjoyed the camaraderie. These encouraging results providesupport for continued use of peer coaching in the pre-serviceexperience.

5.3. Limitations

As noted in the presentation of the data, respondents mis-interpreted several interview questions. Although responses tothose questions ultimately yielded data relevant to the study, weacknowledge that clearer questions may have elicited more defin-itive information. The feeling of anxiety on the part of one partic-ipant is also noteworthy. The participant reported feeling nervousduring the audio-taped interview, and some responses from thatparticipant appeared to be somewhat curtailed or were difficult toassess for meaning. Therefore, concerted efforts to build relation-ships between researchers and participants should also be incor-porated in the future to ensure a maximum comfort level. Otherlimitations present in this study included a small sample size,brevity of the study, and our inability to measure enthusiasm forthe study. It is probable that some of the participants were moreseriously engaged in the peer coaching process than others.Although each person seemed agreeable to the study, we did notassess the enthusiasm of the participants throughout the process.

6. Implications

This study indicates that peer coaching can alter classroompractices for emerging teachers. Data also indicates that partici-pants in this study enjoyed learning about and participating in peercoaching and that the peer coaching process was easy to imple-ment. Therefore, we recommend the addition of peer coaching asa requirement in the pre-service teacher-training process. We feelthat incorporating a peer coaching component in the pre-serviceexperience induces a disposition of collaboration early in theprocess rather than promoting a culture of autonomy that wouldhave to be altered once the transition to teaching is made. Stake-holders in education often point to school administrators for notcreating conditions that promote collaboration, but this studydemonstrates that we [pre-service teacher educators] mustcontinue to examine our own practices to ensure that we are notpromoting a culture of autonomy as well.

Careful attention should be given to the timing of instruction,training, and expectations for the peer coaching process. While

Page 8: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314 313

many schools of education have unique preparation programs,some form of full-time pre-service teaching is often required.Therefore, we suggest that pre-service education is an opportunetime to allow future teachers to experience meaningful collabora-tion. However, implementation of peer coaching in the pre-serviceexperience should be sustained, supportive, and research-based.Hence, training of faculty may be necessary as well. Furthermore,our findings suggest that the peer coaching process should not beoversimplified. On more than one occasion, participants noted thatlittle preparation was required when preparing to engage in thepeer coaching process. While this finding likely increased motiva-tion to participate, it may also suggest that our training wasoversimplified. Accordingly, conciliation between ease of imple-mentation and level of complexity is important.

Experiences with conducting conferences and conductingobservations should be incorporated into the pre-service curric-ulum as well. Unlike our current study, training for pre-service peercoaching should be conducted before, not during, the culminatingteaching experience. As suggested by Jenkins et al. (2002), werecommend that in the early training stages, university instructorsshould provide simple data collection instruments that couldexpedite understanding of the data collection phase of peercoaching.

Although data from this study indicates that participants alteredpractices as a result of using peer coaching, we support Hasbrouck’s(1997) concern that inexperienced pre-service teachers might lacksufficient experience to discern quality in classroom practices. Inaddition, Ling Li (2004) noted that new teachers often use evalu-ative techniques, placing judgment on whether the practices workor not, with little experience and discerning ability. Doing so cancertainly be problematic, so the peer coaching process should beperiodically monitored and evaluated by supervising faculty tomaintain integrity and excellence. This monitoring should occur inboth the instructional phase in the pre-service curriculum and inthe implementation phase during the field experience. If theaforementioned components are considered, peer coaching withpre-service teachers can be productive in terms of maximizinghuman resources and developing a culture of collaboration forcontinued growth.

Appendix A. Interview questions

1. Explain your understanding of the purpose of peer coaching.2. Discuss any experiences you had with peer coaching prior to

participating in this study.

The following questions are about your experience as a peerobserver:

3. Did you feel adequately prepared to observe another intern?a. If yes, explain why you felt prepared.b. If no, explain why you felt unprepared.

4. When you observed another intern, did you feel that youadequately understood the purpose of peer coaching prior toobserving that intern?

5. Did you discuss the observation with the other intern prior toyour visit?

The following questions refer to data that was collectedduring the observation:

6. Who was responsible for determining the data that wascollected during the observation?

7. Discuss how the data collected during the observation wasinterpreted.

8. Were you an active participant in interpreting the data?a. If yes, what role did you play?b. If no, who interpreted the data?

9. Discuss any impact that collecting data for a peer had on yourteaching practices.

The following questions are about your experience in beingpeer coached by another teacher intern:

10. At the time you were observed by another intern, did you feelthat you understood the purpose of peer coaching?

11. Did you feel that the person who observed your classroom wasadequately trained to be a peer coach?a. If yes, explain why you felt the peer coach was adequately

trained.b. If no, explain why you felt the peer coach was not adequately

trained.12. Did you discuss the observation with the peer observer prior to

your observation?

The following questions refer to the data that was collectedduring the observation of your classroom:

13. Who was responsible for determining the data that wascollected during the observation?

14. Discuss how the data collected during the observation wasinterpreted.

15. Were you an active participant in interpreting the data?a. If yes, what role did you play?b. If no, who interpreted the data?

16. Discuss any impact that the data had on your teachingpractices.

Final questions:

17. Discuss how peer coaching might be helpful to you in the future.18. Discuss any frustrations or disappointments with the peer

coaching process.19. Discuss specific ways that peer coaching has caused you to alter

your teaching practices.20. Did participating in peer coaching affect your self-confidence

as a teacher? If yes how was your self-confidence affected?21. Did participating in peer coaching affect your enthusiasm for

teaching? If yes, please explain how your enthusiasm wasaffected.

22. Did peer coaching affect your performance in the classroom? Ifyes, explain how peer coaching affected your performance.

23. Did peer coaching cause you to alter your teaching practices? Ifyes, explain any changes that you made.

24. Given the opportunity, would you be interested in participatingin peer coaching again?

25. Is there anything else that you would like to share about thisexperience that you think is important to this study?

Appendix B. Reflection

Please reflect on your experience with peer coaching asa participant in this graduate study by completing the followingquestions.

R-1 Discuss any positive aspects of this peer coaching experience.R-2 Discuss any negative aspects of this peer coaching experience.R-3 Discuss how this peer coaching experience affected your

teaching practices.

Page 9: Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept

L.R. Britton, K.A. Anderson / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 306–314314

R-4 If this peer coaching experience did not affect your teachingpractices, please discuss why you think your practicesremained unchanged.

R-5 Discuss your overall opinion of peer coaching.

References

Bowman, C. L., & McCormick, S. (2000). Comparison of peer coaching versustraditional supervision effects. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 256–262,Retrieved March 3, 2006, from the Academic Search Premier database.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Teaching quality matters. Journal of Teacher Education,54, 95–98, Retrieved June 29, 2006, from the EJS E-Journals database.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for RenaissanceSchools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Ferraro, J. (2000). Reflective practice and professional development. (Report no. EDO-SP-2000-3). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.(ERIC document reproduction service no. ED449120).

Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: A step-by-step guide.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision ofteachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hasbrouck, J. (1997). Mediated peer coaching for training preservice teachers.Journal of Special Education, 31, 251–271, Retrieved April 13, 2006, from the ERICdatabase.

Jenkins, J. M., Hamrick, C., & Todorovich, J. (2002). Peer coaching. JOPERD: TheJournal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73, 47–53, Retrieved June30, 2006, from the Academic Search Premier database.

Kettle, B., & Sellars, N. (1996). The development of student teachers [sic] practicaltheory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 1–24, Retrieved July12, 2006, from the ERIC database.

Lam, S., Yim, P., & Lam, T. W. (2002). Transforming school culture: can truecollaboration be initiated? Educational Research, 44, 181–195, Retrieved June 28,2006, from the ERIC database.

Ling Li, Y. (2004). A school-based project in five kindergartens: the case of teacherdevelopment and school development. International Journal of Early YearsEducation, 12, 143–155, Retrieved June 28, 2006, from the ERIC database.

Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. PhiDelta Kappan, 86, 727–735, Retrieved March 2, 2006, from the Academic SearchPremier database.

Pajak, E. (2003). Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors. Alexandria:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Proctor, T. J., Rentz, N. L., & Jackson, M. W. (2001). Preparing teachers for urbanschools: the role of field experiences. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25,219–228, Retrieved June 28, 2006, from the Academic Search Premierdatabase.

Reiman, A. J., & Johnson, L. (2003). Promoting teacher professional judgment.Journal of Research in Education, 13(1), 4–14.

Sagor, R. (1997). Collaborative action research for educational change. InA. Hargreaves (Ed.), 1997 AASCD yearbook: Rethinking educational change withheart and mind (pp. 169–191). Alexandria: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Lead-ership, 53(6), 12–16, Retrieved June 27, 2006, from the ERIC database.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2005, December). Teachers teaching teachers:Creating a community of learners to improve instruction and student achievement.Best practices for implementing HSTW and MMGW. (No report no.). Atlanta, GA:Southern Regional Education Board. (ERIC document reproduction service no.ED486512).

Wynn, M., & Kromrey, J. (2000). Paired peer placement with peer coaching toenhance prospective teachers’ professional growth in early field experience.Action in Teacher Education, 22, 73–83, Retrieved June 29, 2006, from the ERICdatabase.

Yopp, H. K., & Guillaume, A. M. (1999). Preparing preservice [sic] teachers forcollaboration. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(1), 5–19, Retrieved June 29, 2006,from the ERIC database.