Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PEER COACHING:
PERSPECTIVES OF TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS
by
MISTY MAYNARD OVERMAN
(under the direction of Drs. JO and JOSEPH BLASE)
The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of teachers and supervisors who participated in a peer coaching program. A grounded theory protocol was used to determine the perspectives of the teachers participating in the peer coaching program and their supervisors. Guided by symbolic interactionism, interviews were conducted, coded, and analyzed. The researcher used the constant comparative method of data analysis first to describe the participants’ experiences in the peer coaching program and then to draw conclusions from the data. Findings of this study indicated that teachers participating in this peer coaching program were motivated to participate because (a) they were dissatisfied with the current form of supervisor observations, (b) they desired to learn something new and improve their teaching practice, (c) their interactions with supervisors indicated a level of trust on the part of the supervisors, and (d) they were given a choice about whether or not to participate. Furthermore, teachers were motivated to participate in peer coaching because they perceived benefits such as relevant and expert feedback. For supervisionists, the implication is that peer coaching, when provided as an option in a teacher-driven professional-development program, provides a vehicle for teachers to access meaningful, relevant, and, based on their opinion, expert feedback. INDEX WORDS: Peer Coaching, Supervision, Professional Development, Professional Growth, Staff Development
PEER COACHING:
PERSPECTIVES OF TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS
by
MISTY MAYNARD OVERMAN
B.S.Ed., The University of Georgia, 1986
M.Ed., The University of Georgia, 1998
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2002
©2002
Misty Maynard Overman
All Rights Reserved
PEER COACHING:
PERSPECTIVES OF TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS
by
MISTY MAYNARD OVERMAN
Approved:
Major Professor: Dr. Jo Blase Dr. Joseph Blase Committee: Dr. Lew Allen Dr. Thomas Holmes Dr. Karen Hunt Dr. Sally Zepeda Electronic Version Approved: Gordhan L. Patel Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2002
DEDICATION
To my parents Mom and Dad, without the love and support of you and my sisters
and brother, I would have never started this task, much less finished. All of my life I have
watched the two of you model your love for learning. You have instilled that love of
learning in your children and now your grandchildren.
To my husband Jerry, you have sacrificed so much in order for me to accomplish
my goals. Thank you for becoming Mr. Mom and never complaining about frozen
dinners. Thank you for your encouragement, support, and love during this process. I now
look forward to reaching the goals we share together.
To my children You have also sacrificed so that Mom could achieve her goals.
Through the highs and the lows, you watched me bounce off to class, struggle to write
single sentences, and celebrate small victories. I pray that you have seen that with hard
work and determination, goals can be achieved. May you always love to learn. Grant,
Jordan, and Jenna, this summer we play!
May all I do bring glory and honor to the Lord.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would have never finished this project without the inspiration and support of so
many people.
To the teachers and supervisors in this study: You have inspired me! I will
always remember the lessons you have taught me with your words and examples.
To Dr. David Fincher and the Board of Greater Atlanta Christian School: Thank
you for giving me the opportunity to complete a dream! You have set a standard that with
God’s help I hope to meet and exceed.
To Dr. Jo Blase: The day I first met you I was starting my master’s work. I was
scared and unsure. But in just a few moments, you gave me hope and encouragement. I
remember walking away thinking, “She thinks I can do this!” The impact you have had
on me will affect teachers and students for many years to come. You are my inspiration!
Thank you for showing me the way!
To Dr. Joseph Blase: Thank you for helping me find my way through a task I
don’t think at first even you thought I could do. You have pushed and prodded, supported
and encouraged! Thank you for believing in me!
To Dr. Karen Hunt: Thank you for your support! You showed in ways many
others haven’t that the job I do in private education is also important.
v
vi
To Dr. Thomas Holmes: Thank you for keeping me on my toes. I appreciate your
time and willingness to be a part of this committee.
To Dr. Sally Zepeda: You fanned the flame of passion I have for the field of
supervision. Thank you for believing in me and giving me the tools to become a caring
and educated leader.
To the teachers I work with: You have put up with so much! Your undying
support and encouragement have made it possible for me to finish this task. I will always
be grateful for the opportunity you give me every day to serve you. Your jobs are the
hardest! But you show me every day what it means to give completely.
To: Daniele, Jimmy, and Scott: I could not have done this without your daily
support. You are wonderful and I appreciate you more and more everyday! Thank you for
all you did to support me.
To the cabin buddies, Angie and Betty: Thank you for the long hard hours you
pushed and prodded me through. I can hardly wait till we go back to the cabin to play.
You have been an inspiration!
To Lea: We are done! Words cannot do justice to the things you have taught me.
The HOURS of studying, talking, studying, talking, and more studying and talking! I
could not have done this without you! Let’s get our laminated copies of the “friends,”
give them away, and go celebrate!
To Betty: We have worked hard to get to this point. I love being with you because
you never want to stop learning! Being together every step and mile of the way, driving
back and forth, summer after summer, sharing our every thought has been some of the
best moments of my life. Having you to talk with, share with, and even cry with has made
vii
this whole process bearable and even fun. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all
the love and support. You are a once-in-a-lifetime kind of friend, in fact my sister.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................v
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................3
Background of the Study ...................................................................................3
Research Question .............................................................................................4
Theoretical Significance ....................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework......................................................................................5
Assumptions.......................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................6
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................6
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................................8
Research on Peer Coaching ...............................................................................8
Coaching as Training .........................................................................................9
The Supervisor’s Role in Coaching .................................................................11
Research on Supervision..................................................................................12
The Current Status of Field of Supervision .....................................................13
New Direction for Supervision ........................................................................13
VIII
ix
Differentiated Supervision ...............................................................................15
Democratic Supervision...................................................................................16
Empowering Supervision.................................................................................17
Models of the New Supervision.......................................................................19
Benefits of the New Supervisor .......................................................................19
Summary of Supervision Literature.................................................................21
Adult Learning and Motivation .......................................................................21
Motivation........................................................................................................23
Summary ..........................................................................................................24
3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................25
Research Design and Questions.......................................................................27
Context of the Study ........................................................................................28
Methodology of Grounded Theory and Constant Comparative Analysis .......31
Data Sources ....................................................................................................32
Data Analysis and Collection Procedures........................................................37
Constant Comparative Method ........................................................................37
Reliability and Validity....................................................................................43
Control of Bias.................................................................................................45
Subjectivity Statement .....................................................................................46
4 FINDINGS.........................................................................................................47
Teachers ...........................................................................................................47
Motivation........................................................................................................48
Benefits ............................................................................................................74
x
Supervisors.......................................................................................................86
Summary of Findings.......................................................................................89
5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS .....................................91
Summary of the Study .....................................................................................91
Research Design...............................................................................................92
Discussion........................................................................................................93
Implications......................................................................................................99
Implications for Further Research ...................................................................99
Implications for Higher Education.................................................................101
Implications for K-12 Staff Developers.........................................................102
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................104
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................112
A CODING CHART.....................................................................................113
B THEMES AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS............................................114
C THEMES AS REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS......................................115
D SURVEY RESULTS FROM 2000-2001...................................................116
E CONSENT FORM .....................................................................................120
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Educators have found a way to break down the walls of isolation and engage in
meaningful discussion, action, and reflection through a professional-development process
called coaching (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). Coaching, which is practiced by pairs or
groups of teachers, has included such things as observation and feedback (Costa &
Garmston, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Joyce & Showers, 1996), technical training
with an expert (Joyce & Showers, 1995), and collegial interaction (Little, 1990).
Additional names such as technical, collegial, team, challenge, cognitive, and peer have
also been applied to the process of coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
While the focus of each type of coaching is different, the intent is the same.
Coaching allows teachers to operate in a collegial and collaborative environment (Costa
& Garmston, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1996). It is believed this form of positive
reinforcement would help professional educators to grow and develop (Brandt, 1987).
While there is growing understanding about the professional-development needs
of teachers, there is a call to revise the current system of meeting those needs (Gordon,
1992). This system, called educational supervision, has been described as dysfunctional
and top-down (Blase & Anderson, 1995), a pipeline delivery (Sergiovanni, 1989), and a
“dog and pony show” practice (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998, p. 72).
1
2
Supervisionists, pointing to an apparent crisis in American education, believe the
paradigm must shift from the old view of supervision to a new one (Gordon, 1992).
Gordon, supporting a need for this change, stated, “There has been a growing acceptance
of a new paradigm for curriculum and instructional leadership” (p. 63). He also asserted
that this “new supervision views a whole range of curriculum and instructional leadership
activities as interdependent and interactive and calls for integrating these activities as
functions of educational supervision” (p. 65). Blase and Blase (1999) found progressive
forms of instructional leadership in this new supervision that include coaching, reflection,
collegial investigation, study teams, and problem solving.
Research has just begun on the practices of this new view of supervision. In
1998, Blase and Blase found that progressive leaders provide pragmatic ways to
implement practices that make sense to both teachers and supervisors and include the
building of trust, empowering teachers, and fostering reflection by emphasizing practices
such as the development of coaching relationships among teachers. Finding schools that
advocate and practice the elements of this new supervision is a difficult task. Often
administrators who are able to promote such practice within their schools find themselves
moved to different positions to re-create the program (Delaney & Arredondo, 1998).
When they leave, these programs often collapse. There is therefore a need to examine
what and how these programs work.
It was the purpose of this study to continue the research of the practices of this
new supervision. This study sought to describe the perspectives of supervisors and
teachers who are involved in peer coaching programs at a high school in northeastern
Georgia. Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (1998) observed that while studies of
3
teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and values were abundant, there was a dearth of research on
principals’ attitudes, beliefs, and values. They noted, “Whether or not they are conscious
of it, teachers’ and supervisors’ educational philosophies have a significant impact on
instruction and instructional improvement efforts” (p. 97). In 1986, Blumberg and
Greenfield wrote:
[We] believe that a much-neglected dimension of the study of principals, as well
as of their training, selection, and later career development, is the character of
principals and their qualities as human beings, including their values and beliefs
about education, teaching, and learning, their interpersonal skills and orientations,
their skills of analysis and tolerance for conflict and ambiguity, and their
knowledge regarding instructional and organizational process. (p. 235)
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives toward supervision of
supervisors and teachers working within a school where traditional supervisory coaching
activities (observation and feedback) were led by teachers.
Background of the Study
As discussed above, the focus of supervision has begun to change from
supervision over to supervision with (Gordon, 1992). This movement has created a need
to explore the perspectives of supervisors and teachers who work with one of the tools of
this new supervision: peer coaching.
Peer coaching has been around for several years. Joyce and Showers (1995,
1996), who are considered the leading experts on the topic, have cataloged the
4
transformation of peer coaching from a program that focuses on a specific training issue
to a program that encourages collegiality.
Recent studies on coaching have centered on such things as the dialogue between
coaches (Delaney & Arredondo, 1998), one coach’s perspective of his own participation
in a coaching program (Kovic, 1996), teachers’ perceptions on interdependence (Little &
Bird, 1984), transfer of training (Showers, 1993), and implementation of innovations
such as peer coaching (Little & Bird, 1983). In each of these studies, coaching was
discussed and defined as an additional activity rather than as a replacement for traditional
supervisory activities such as a supervisor’s observation of the teacher. Little
investigation has been done that focuses on peer coaching between teachers as an
alternative supervisory activity.
Costa and Garmston (1994) made popular and accessible the cognitive form of
coaching, where teachers engage in a pre-conference, an observation, and a post-
conference cycle. This is often associated with clinical supervision (Glickman, 1990).
This cognitive format of coaching was the focus of this study. In addition, peer coaching
at the study site was offered as an alternative to the traditional supervisor observations.
Research Question
Schwandt (1994) asserted that from an interpretivist standpoint, the goal of
research is defined by efforts to grasp or understand the meaning of social phenomena “in
a complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it” (p. 118).
Given this focus, the guiding question for this study was: How do supervisors and
teachers experience participation in a peer coaching program?
5
Theoretical Significance
Theories of educational supervision and adult learning were the guiding
theoretical contexts for this study. In 1973, Huberman stated, “All schools are living
organizations and respond accordingly to revised patterns of operation. Some of the
current innovations require important adjustments in the ways school personnel interact,
apart from changes in duration and regularity of their contact” (p. 22). Innovations such
as peer coaching have found their way into a program where teachers are offered a choice
of alternative supervisory activities. The significance of this study lies in the implications
of its findings for peer coaching as a learning experience for teachers and an alternative
form of supervision. The findings of this study can provide researchers with reasons that
teachers are motivated to participate in peer coaching as an alternative supervisory
activity. Staff developers and supervisors will be provided a template to organize and
train teachers in alternative supervisory activities such as peer coaching.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework that guided the research design and interpretation of
the data for this study was symbolic interactionism. Woods (1992) stated that symbolic
interactionism “typically deals with small-scale, everyday life, seeking to understand
processes, relationships, group life, motivation, [and] adaptations” (p. 365). Studying the
relationships, motivations, and processes of the peer coaching program in this study was
an attempt to understand the perspectives of supervisors and teachers as a result of their
participation in a peer coaching program. As Schwandt (1994) described, social
interactionists are “in search of portraying and understanding the process of meaning
making” for participants in which they study (p. 123).
6
Assumptions
The guiding premise of this study was that “perspective is meaningful, knowable,
and able to be made explicit” (Patton, 1980, p. 196). Based on this premise, the
researcher made several assumptions. First, it was assumed that the participants in the
study participated in the entire program including, the pre-conference, observation, and
post-conference activities. It was also assumed that the participants responded in a
truthful manner about their experiences in this peer coaching program.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used within the context of this study:
1. Coaching was defined as engagements by pairs or groups of educators in meaningful
discussion, action, and reflection (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991), which may or may not
include such things as observation and feedback (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
2. Peer Coaching was defined for this study as the engagement in the above activities
and was limited to teams that included peer teachers.
3. Supervisor was defined for this study as the person or persons responsible for
overseeing the curriculum and instructional activities of teachers, including staff
development, instructional supervision, and peer coaching.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the purpose of the
study, the research question, definitions of terms, assumptions, and significance for
studying the perspectives of teachers and supervisors involved in a peer coaching
program. The literature on peer coaching, supervision, and adult learning is reviewed in
chapter 2. Procedures for data collection and analysis are discussed in chapter 3. Chapter
7
4 presents findings from the data, and chapter 5 discusses those findings, along with
conclusions and implications for future research.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The teachers who participated in this peer coaching program were adult learners
engaged in the activities of observation and feedback in place of the traditional
observation cycle conducted by their supervisors. This nontraditional approach to
supervision supported a literature review of peer coaching, supervision, and adult
learning, and this literature review was used as the context of this study.
Research on Peer Coaching
The description of coaching encompasses many facets. The terms collegial
coaching (Little, 1990), cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1994), and peer
coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1996) all describe different approaches toward the coaching
process. While the focus of each type of coaching differ slightly, “the major purpose of
peer coaching programs remains implementation of innovations to the extent the
determination of effects on students is possible” (Joyce & Showers, 1996, p. 117).
The review of the literature on peer coaching found most studies focused only on
the teachers. Coaching, as described in these studies, had been used in a variety of ways,
including increasing implementation of innovations and assisting a colleague in
classroom management. Though Joyce and Showers (1995, 1996) provided the most
comprehensive research on coaching, others such as Little and Bird (1983, 1984),
8
9
Delaney and Arredondo (1998), and Grimmett (1987) also contributed to the body of
knowledge on coaching.
Coaching as Training
The early roots of peer coaching were found in the staff development work of the
1980s (Joyce & Showers, 1996). Coaching was used to raise the level of implementation
of training teachers learned during staff development sessions. Joyce and Showers (1996)
maintained that the most effective types of training that are likely to result in the
continued and effective teacher use of old and new strategies are those that include
coaching following the initial training. At that time, the staff development training model
for teachers included presentation of theory, modeling or demonstration, practice,
structured and open-ended feedback, and in-class assistance (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
Research centered around the impact of coaching on long-term implementation following
the initial training of teachers in a new strategy (Joyce & Showers, 1996; Showers, 1985;
Sparks, 1986). In summarizing an earlier study, Joyce and Showers (1995) found that
“continuing technical assistance resulted in much greater classroom implementation of
training concepts than was achieved by teachers who shared initial training but did not
have the long-term support of coaching” (p. 118). Likewise, Sparks (1986) found that
alternative training activities, such as coaching, are effective in changing teaching
practices.
In 1995, Joyce and Showers compiled a list of the results of coaching’s
contributions to the transfer of training from their early studies. They found that:
10
1. Coached teachers generally practiced new strategies more frequently and
developed greater skill in the actual moves of a teaching strategy than did the
uncoached teachers who had experienced the identical initial training.
2. Coached teachers used their newly learned strategies more appropriately than
uncoached teachers.
3. Coached teachers exhibited greater long-term retention of knowledge about and
skill with strategies in which they had been coached.
4. Coached teachers were much more likely than uncoached teachers to teach new
models of teaching to their students.
5. Coached teachers exhibited clearer cognitions with regard to the purposes and uses
of the new strategies.
The mid-1980s saw changes in coaching such as the elimination of the feedback
component. Joyce and Showers found “it necessary and important to omit verbal
feedback as a component of coaching” (1996, p. 15). According to Joyce and Showers
(1995), this elimination was done without grievous effects to the coaching process. One
reason for eliminating the feedback component was the difficulty teachers had in
avoiding assumption of a supervisory role and giving evaluative comments. Joyce and
Showers believed this difficulty was due in part to the teachers training and participation
in clinical supervision activities with their supervisors (1995).
The next phase in the development of coaching was to use peer teachers as
trainers rather than experts. The use of teachers as trainers has been examined since 1974
(Joyce & Showers, 1996). Bentzen (1974), Devaney and Thorn (1975), Sharon and
11
Hertz-Lazarowitz (1982), and Berman and McLaughlin (1975) summarized the value of
teachers observing other teachers for effective educational change programs.
Further developments and research in the use of coaching found that teachers coaching
each other promoted professional and collegial relationships (Delaney & Arredondo,
1998; Garmston, 1983; Kovic, 1996; Little, 1982, 1990). Anderson and Snyder (1998)
summarized:
The metaphor of “coaching” as fully developed in the work of Joyce, Showers,
and others [had] become a synonym for certain of those helping functions for
which supervisors are often responsible, but also and especially for the collegial-
assistance functions in which peers engage. (p. 348)
While some dismissed the effects of coaching as minimal (Grimmett, 1987), the
“essence” of coaching was not just the offering of advice to teachers following
observations (Joyce & Showers, 1995). The learning for teams of teachers had been
facilitated through the planning, developing, observation, and thinking about student
learning when teachers worked together (Delaney & Arredondo, 1998; Little & Bird,
1984; Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). Additional findings of studies on peer coaching suggest
that when the entire school participates in peer coaching teams after training, the level of
implementation approaches 100% (Joyce & Showers, 1995).
The Supervisor’s Role in Coaching
The role of teachers in coaching programs has already been the focus of research.
A few studies even examined components of supervisor participation. For example,
McFaul and Cooper (1984) found that the pairing of supervisors and teachers in peer
coaching teams was an effective coaching relationship. However, other studies have
12
found that having a coach who was not a peer, such as a supervisor, resulted in
observations being seen as evaluations, thus neutralizing the effectiveness of the coaching
process (Neubert & Bratton, 1987). Grimmett (1987) found that when district supervisors
coached teachers, “time constraints, peer incompatibility, professional threat, and
interpersonal defensiveness had rendered the coaching process minimal” (p. 11).
There is little research that has been done on the supervisor’s participation in a
peer coaching program where traditional supervisory activities have been conducted by
participating teachers. Studies that have been conducted reveal little of the supervision
perspectives. What has been revealed is that the supervisor does have a role in supporting
the program. For example, Delaney and Arredondo (1998) noted that the peer coaching
program they studied collapsed when the supporting principal left the school. In many
studies, descriptions of the supervisor’s activities were limited to the tasks of providing
release time and substitute coverage for teachers in peer coaching programs (Askins,
1994). In contrast, Ruck (1986) provided a promising direction for research in that he
believed, but had not confirmed, that the principals’ roles reside in their attitude,
commitment and willingness to allocate resources, and ability to provide incentives and
rewards.
Research on Supervision
To examine peer coaching as a supervision tool, assuming both teachers and
supervisors have an integral part, it was important to examine aspects of supervision. The
context of this study suggested that a review of the literature on the current and future
direction of the field of supervision was needed to extend the perspectives of the
participants.
13
The Current Status of Field of Supervision
In the opening chapter of Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues, and
Controversies, Starratt (1997) discussed supervision issues and raised a serious question
about the future and direction of the field of educational supervision. Starratt proposed
abolishing “supervisory practice that occupies 80% to 90% of the practice of supervision
in a given school, when it is practiced by principals and assistant principals” (p. 4); he
believed that supervision should be abolished when it “fulfills a bureaucratic function of
personnel evaluation, performance evaluation, instructional evaluation, assessment, or
whatever other name is given to it” (p. 5).
Zepeda and Ponticell (1998) found supervision was viewed by teachers as a dog
and pony show, a weapon, a meaningless/invisible routine, a fix-it list, and an unwelcome
intervention. Blase and Anderson (1995) noted “most existing constructions of leadership
and schooling are dysfunctional for teachers, students, and their communities” (p. 146).
In 1985, Goldsberry reported findings of a study of supervision as it occurred in
six school districts in Pennsylvania. His team described two types of supervision:
nominal supervision that existed to “fix” teachers and patterned supervision that
consisted of a set of procedural steps that involved all teachers. The findings of
Goldsberry’s study implied supervision was “over” teachers rather than “with” them. As
stated in chapter 1, there is a demand for supervision to change directions (Gordon,
1992).
New Direction for Supervision
If supervision, as it is currently practiced, were to make changes, what would
guide the changes? Gordon (1992) promoted the idea that “there is a growing recognition
14
that there is not, and never will be, a single approach to instruction or supervision that can
be applied effectively to all teachers, students, or learning content” (p. 66).
To many, the old idea of supervision implied “direct assistance while the more
current view of supervision included a whole range of curriculum and instructional
leadership activities as interdependent and interactive, and called for integrating these
activities as functions of educational supervision” (Gordon, 1992, p. 65). Similarly,
Goldsberry (1985) described a type of supervision called integrated supervision, which
combined patterned supervision with other professional-development approaches
designed to meet “specific needs of the setting and teachers served” (p. 16). Goldsberry
concluded in his study that this “integrated approach to supervision [was] at least partly
responsible for better teaching” (p. 16).
The role of supervisor has been changing in recent years. Burke and Fessler
(1994) described supervisors moving from doing supervision to making supervision
happen. Gordon (1992) described this transition as moving principals from controlling
teachers to empowering them. Blase and Blase (1999) wrote of “administrators and
teachers working together as ‘communities of learners’” (p. 350) engaging in progressive
forms of instructional leadership such as coaching, reflection, collegial investigation,
study teams, and problem solving. Furthermore, they stated, “today’s supervision is
position free; it is supervision wherein leaders, teachers, and learners are all one and in
which the underlying spirit is one of expansion of skills and spirit” (p. 16). But what is it
that makes today’s supervision “position free?”
15
Differentiated Supervision
One direction supervision is moving toward is a differentiated approach.
Anderson’s (1989) term for this new supervision, situational supervision, “suggests that
teachers have varying levels of maturity of skill that call in each case for type-specific
attention” (p. 292). Glatthorn’s (1997) model of supervision was called differentiated
supervision and proposed that supervision take place with teachers in different levels and
in different ways. Similarly, Glickman called for supervisors to match their approaches to
supervision to a particular teacher’s developmental level and situation (Glickman, 1990).
Differentiated supervision asks of supervisors what has already been asked of
teachers with students: Treat teachers individually and let them make choices about their
professional development. Glatthorn (1997) believed that allowing teachers to help each
other grow professionally builds a greater spirit of cooperation and trust. Research
(Glatthorn, 1997) showed that teachers
welcome and profit from qualified observers, either peers or administrators, who
will not waste the teacher’s time, who will not insult the teacher’s intelligence,
and who will work as hard to understand classroom events as the teachers do to
conduct them. (p. 6)
Oliva and Pawless (1997) have also presented a model of supervision. It was
comprised of three major supervisory domains: instruction, curriculum, and staff
development. The authors proposed “the supervisor assists teachers in the improvement
of instruction, curriculum planning and improvement, and personal and professional
development” (p. 23). Furthermore, they suggested the supervisor should be an “idea
person” who could help teachers think of new and improved ways of teaching (p. 26).
16
This movement suggested that supervisors are not seen as all knowing. As Oliva and
Pawless state, “Indeed, the supervisor should convey the attitude of valuing in seeking
the ideas of others while not appearing to have answers to all the problems that teachers
face” (p. 26).
Democratic Supervision
Another direction of supervision that is similar to differentiation is democratic
supervision. Glickman (1990) described his “supervisory platform” as “collaborative
experimentalism striving toward non-directive existentialism within a developmental
framework, with supervision being eclectic in practice” (p. 93, italics in the original).
Thus, the supervisor does not impart wisdom and knowledge to the teacher; rather,
“supervisors work democratically with teachers to achieve collective ends that will help
everyone. Supervisors help when needed, protect the rights of others to self-discovery,
and encounter the teacher as a person of full importance” (Glickman, pp. 85-87).
In a recent report on five case studies, Sullivan and Glanz (2000a) revealed what
they believed to be two crucial facets of effective supervision for the 21st century. In
their opinion, if the goal of supervision is to develop self-directed, autonomous
professionals, the field must emphasize a “democratic conception of supervision that is
based on collaboration, participative decision making, and reflective practice” (p. 15). In
addition, this new supervision requires “visionary leaders who [promote] these beliefs
and values and [enjoin] their faculties to construct together a supervisory program that
[will] improve teaching and learning” (p. 15). Darling-Hammond (1998) noted
supervision should empower “teachers with greater understanding of complex situations
17
rather than seeking to control them with simplistic formulas or cookie-cutter routines” (p.
3).
Empowering Supervision
Finally, supervision can be seen as moving to an empowering state. Blase and
Blase’s Handbook for Instructional Leadership (1998), based on a comprehensive study
of over 800 teachers, presented several key components of this new mind-set for
supervision and provided pragmatic ways to implement practice supervision that made
sense. Components of this type of supervision include building trust, empowering
teachers, and fostering reflection. Smyth (1997) recommended giving teachers more,
rather than less, control over their teaching. Pajak (1993) observed that supervision’s
emerging focus was “on helping teachers discover and construct professional knowledge
and skills” (p. 318). This approach contrasts with the previous practices of prescribing
teacher skills and behaviors (Blase & Blase, 1998). As Blase and Blase stated, “clearly
there is a compelling need for practicing and aspiring administrators and supervisors to
search for ways to encourage collegiality and to significantly improve instructional
supervision in today’s changing schools” (p. 4).
Additionally, Blase and Blase (1999) found that effective interaction between
principals and teachers occurred in talking with teachers and promoting professional
growth. Their findings indicated that in promoting reflection with teachers, effective
principals made suggestions, gave feedback, modeled, used inquiry, solicited advice and
opinions, and gave praise. Blase and Blase also described promotion of professional
growth as an attribute of an effective principal. Effective principals emphasized the study
of teaching and learning, supported collaborative efforts among educators, and developed
18
coaching relationships among educators. In addition, such principals encouraged and
supported redesign of programs, applied the principles of adult learning, growth, and
development, and implemented action research to inform instructional decision making.
Hallam and McKeen’s (1991) study revealed that when alternative models of
supervision were employed to address the problem of a shortage of supervisory
personnel, the result was a climate that “enhanced teachers’ and administrators’
opportunities for both personal and professional growth” (p. 4). Ebmeier and Nicklaus
(1999) suggested that collaborative supervision appears to be a cost-effective way to
increase many of the factors often cited as elements that are characteristic of effective
schools, although in their study the principal produced three times the effect that peers
did. Ebmeier and Nicklaus found that trust, commitment, collaboration, and efficacy
resulted from the collaborative supervision process.
Harchar’s study of key elements necessary for administrative instructional
leadership in elementary schools revealed a strategy for instructional leadership that
channeled the power inequities in a school “community” through a filtering gate of
action/interaction strategies (1993). “Collaborative power’’ utilizing trust, collegiality,
empowerment, diplomacy, and visioning was used to “create a school where the focus
was on teacher collaboration and child development” (p. 26). Reitzug’s (1994) case study
of an effective practitioner revealed three categories of empowering behaviors: support,
facilitation, and possibility. Of the three, possibility was the most intriguing to Reitzug,
who defined it as “principals [making] it possible for teachers to act on their critique” (p.
290) of current practice and policy.
19
Models of the New Supervisor
In addition to being democratic and empowering, practitioners of the new
supervision will face challenges, not only from without but also from within. Based on
Schon’s work on reflection, Nolan & Huber (1989) believed that “changing teacher
behavior is not the most important goal of the supervisor who sees teaching as reflective
practice” (p. 128). Rather, the critical task of the supervisor is to help engage the teacher
more successfully in reflective behavior while promoting critical inquiry into the
processes of teaching and learning. Glatthorn (1992) also argued that instead of using the
“top-down approaches of clinical supervision,” supervisors should use “a collegial,
teacher-driven model that reduces the emphasis on accountability and increases the
emphasis on growth” (p. 13).
In 1997, Reitzug conducted a review of ten supervision textbooks. He found “the
images described in supervision textbooks portray teachers as mindless and voiceless
individuals who should respond robotically to supervisor commands” (p. 333). He
concluded, “the images imply that the principal is the agent of improved instruction, not
the teacher” (p. 333). In his discussion of these issues, he proposed that these images are
“morally questionable and practically limiting” (p. 337). Instead, he asserted that “based
on recent research, one set of more empowering images might portray teachers and
principals as collaborative inquirers, educating (teaching) as problematic, and
professional development (supervision) as sustained and ongoing” (p. 342).
Benefits of New Supervision
If we subscribe to this new view of democratic and empowering supervision, what
benefits do we hope to reap? Sergiovanni (1992) noted, “teachers become more
20
committed and self-managing when schools become true communities, freeing principals
from the burden of trying to control people” (p. 41). He believed that “in time, direct
leadership will become less and less important, self-management will begin to take hold,
and substitutes for leadership will become more deeply embedded in the school” (p. 45).
To those who espouse the theory that without direct management, teachers will serve
their own self-interests, Sergiovanni asserted that within a community, “shared values,
the professional ideal, and collegiality as virtues place great emphasis on the importance
of rewarding work and provide the framework for sorting out commitments, duties, and
obligations” (p. 45). In other words, “what we believe in, think to be good, and feel
obligated to do gets done” (p. 45). Zepeda and Ponticell’s (1998) study found that
teachers whose perspective of supervision was a vehicle for professionalism felt,
“respected as professionals in supervision when they were perceived by supervisors as
central to the supervisory process rather than subordinate to it”(p. 10).
Looking to the future, Blase and Blase (1998) spoke of structured options that
would reflect teacher’s individual needs and goals and are based on standards and
expectations. Sullivan and Glanz (2000b) predicted that supervisory leadership in the
next century will consist of enhanced collaborative relationships, supervisors and
teachers sharing decision making, supervisors practicing reflective listening, and,
contrary to the inherent meaning of the word supervision, teacher self-direction. Practices
that are “mechanistic conceptions of supervision that rely on inspectorial practices” will
become outdated (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000a, p. 2).
21
Summary of Supervision Literature
Summarizing, Anderson and Snyder (1998) talked of the “portrait of supervision
going through several stages of metamorphosis” (p. 351). Supervision is moving from
authoritarian control and evaluation “toward team development and interpersonal
collaboration” (p. 351). Blumberg (1980) stated, “supervision is an interactive affair, not
only between and among people, but relative to its aims” (p. 18). The aims of supervision
are high. Those who promote the theory of supervision have described a vision of
supervision that is differentiated, democratic, and empowering. This study looked to
reveal the perspectives of those involved in a program that was derived from these
concepts. This study examined this type of supervision in a specific setting, peer
coaching.
Adult Learning and Motivation
The findings of this study revealed that motivation is key in describing the
perspectives of the teachers. Teachers in the study spoke not only of their initial
motivation to participate in the program, but also of their motivations to continue in the
peer coaching program. To understand motivation, it is essential to consider how adults
learn. Brookfield (1986) and others outlined what they believed to be the components of
adult learning.
Knowles (1980), the seminal author on the subject, posits four assumptions about
the adult learner. First, integral to adult learning and consequently to motivation is an
adult’s self-concept. An adult’s self-concept progresses from that of a dependent person
toward that of a self-directed human being. Rather than continue in the passive childlike
role of a learner, an adult will acquire an image of himself as a doer and a producer. An
22
adult becomes and wants to be seen as a self-directed personality. According to Knowles
(1980), this desire carried with it implications for those responsible for steering adults in
their learning. Adults need to be treated with respect, involved in mutual inquiry, and
given responsibility for their own learning (Knowles). In addition, he posits that adult
should be given choices with regard to their learning experiences.
Secondly, the life experiences of an adult learner lay a foundation for the structure
of future learning activities. Knowles (1980) believed that, unlike a child who believes
experiences are those things that happen to him or her, an adult believes experiences are
those things that define him or her. Therefore, Knowles (1980) believed that this
definition, created by life experiences, has implications for creating future adult learning
experiences. First, adults themselves are a rich resource in creating learning experiences.
Second, life experiences help build a rich foundation for learning new things. Third, the
fixed habits and patterns of thought that adults have acquired are not easily transformed.
Next, Knowles (1980) asserted that the nature of an adult learner suggests that an
emphasis should be placed on experiential techniques, practical applications, and
unfreezing techniques to help adults look at themselves more objectively.
Finally, a fourth assumption to consider is that like children, adults also have
developmental stages of learning. However, unlike the physiological basis for the
developmental stages of children, the developmental stages of adults center on “the
evolution of social roles” (Knowles, 1980, p. 46). These roles are integrally woven by the
life experiences of adults as they go about their day-to-day lives as mothers, fathers,
workers, friends, colleagues, and so forth.
23
A fundamental difference between children and adult learners is their orientation
to learning. Knowles (1980) supports the theory that children operate within a principle
of postponed application, whereas adults operate within a principle of immediate
application. Adults want to know that what they are learning is applicable to their life
situation. Teachers engaged in professional learning situations need to know how this
learning relates to their current situations.
Brookfield (1986) described the effective facilitation of adult learning. Voluntary
participation, mutual respect of participants, collaboration of teachers and instructors on
objectives and evaluations, and promotion of critical thinking are components of effective
facilitation. Brookfield also proposed that the facilitator should strive to empower the
adult learner by providing self-directed learning opportunities.
Motivation
Understanding how adults learn is the essential for understanding what motivates
them to choose particular learning situations. Several theories exist on adult motivation.
Even Knowles (1984) conceded the importance of motivation, considering it a fifth
assumption of his adult learning theory. McClelland’s (1998) motivational theory, the
achieving society, dealt with an adult’s need for achievement, affiliation, and power.
Janis and Mann (1977) supported a decisional-balance theory that suggests four
kinds of consequences resulting from a person’s actions. They believed that motivators
for self can be utilitarian in nature, for gain or loss, and include income, enjoyment, and
attainment of preferences. In addition, motivators can be described in terms of doing
something for significant others, such as raising the social status of the family, helping
the needy, or developing the school system.
24
Herzberg’s (1987) theory, motivator versus hygiene, described hygiene factors or
satisfiers like policies, supervision, work conditions, salary, peer relations, subordinate
relations, status, and security. Motivators include achievement, recognition, work itself,
responsibility, advancement, and growth.
Summary
The literature and research on peer coaching, supervision, and adult learning that
has been reviewed supports the idea of peer coaching. Studies of peer coaching have
covered topics ranging from implementation of training to collegiality. However, little
has been done in the specific area of a teacher’s motivation to peer coach and the
supervisor’s part in promoting that participation. By combining the research bases of peer
coaching, supervision, and motivation, this study attempted to describe the perspectives
of the participants of this peer coaching program.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study sought to examine the perspectives of supervisors and teachers who
worked in a high school with a peer coaching program. It was the goal of the researcher
to understand the perspectives of both the teachers who peer coached and the supervisors
of the teachers.
“Human experience is mediated by interpretation” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p.
33). People give meaning to objects, other people, situations, and events based on a
process of interaction, interpretation, and reflection, not based on internal drives or
predetermined responses. Using the conceptual paradigm of symbolic interactionism,
supervision of peer coaching could be better understood by looking at the interplay
between how participants (both supervisors and teachers) came to define supervision and
the specific situations in which they found themselves at a high school in northeastern
Georgia. People act according to how they perceive the world, not how it is supposed to
be or how someone else tells them to act (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). According to Bogdan
and Biklen, “The definitions they have determine their actions, although the rules and the
credit system may set certain limits and impose certain costs, and thus affect their
behavior” (p. 34).
George Herbert Mead’s book, Mind, Self, and Society (1934), is the most cited,
seminal work of what is now called symbolic interactionism (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982).
25
26
Herbert Blumer, Mead’s student, asserted that symbolic interactionism is based on three
major premises. First, the way individuals act toward things and people is based on the
meanings that they give to those things and people (Blumer, 1969). Disagreeing with the
prevailing view of the time that individuals’ actions are based on internal drives or
societal structures (Woods, 1992), Blumer declared that, if this view were true, there
should be “no need to concern oneself with the meaning of things toward which human
beings act” (p. 3). His premise was that human beings act according to the meanings they
hold. In light of this, Bogdan and Taylor (1998) maintained, “symbolic interactionists
place primary importance on the social meanings people attach to the world around
them” (p. 11, italics in original). This interactive process has helped the participants of
this peer coaching program to define and construct the ways in which they see themselves
and has enabled them to grow and change.
Blumer’s (1969) second premise was that the above-mentioned meanings were
“derived from, or arise out of the social interaction that one has with one’s fellow” (p. 2).
Recognizing that roles, norms, values, and goals set conditions and consequences for
action, symbolic interaction maintains these things alone do not determine what a person
will do (1969). It is the interpretation of these things, through interaction with other
individuals, that results in meaning and action for participants (Blumer). The participants
of this peer coaching program interacted with each other in such a way as to define what
the experience meant to them and provide structure for future interactions.
Blumer’s (1969) third premise described the continual interpretive process
through social interaction by participants in particular situations. “The actor selects,
checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in the light of the situation in
27
which he is placed and the direction of his action” (Blumer, p. 5). This process is ongoing
and can change over time and across situations. According to the framework of symbolic
interactionism, the meanings and actions of supervisors and teachers in peer coaching
programs result from the interactions with each other as well as interpretations of the
roles, norms, and goals that help set the conditions and consequences for their actions
(Blumer). Social interaction is “a continuing matter of fitting developing lines of conduct
to one another through a dual process of definition and interpretation which operates both
to sustain established patterns of joint conduct and to open them up to transformations”
(Blumer, p. 13).
Research Design and Questions
This study sought to understand the meanings that supervisors and teachers gave
to their actions and beliefs involving their interactions with each other in the context of
participation in a peer coaching program. It was through these meanings, derived from
the ongoing social interactions individuals had with one another, that supervisors and
teachers defined and interpreted their interactions with each other. By focusing on the
meanings teachers and supervisors gave to their interactions, this study explored the
perspectives of participants regarding peer coaching.
Perspective, according to Patton, is “meaningful, knowable, and able to be made
explicit” (1980, p. 196). According to Becker and Geer (1960), an individual’s viewpoint
and actions in specific situations are comprised of coordinated patterns of feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors and are known as his or her perspective. As main participants in
the peer coaching program, the perspectives of teachers were important. However, it was
28
also important to define the perspectives of the supervisors, who operated in an important
but supportive role.
In working with nontraditional forms of supervision such as peer coaching, these
supervisors and teachers formed new definitions and meanings. These definitions and
meanings were ones that the supervisors and teachers had constructed themselves. As
Blumer (1969) stated, “It is the position of symbolic interactionism that the social action
of the actor is constructed by him; it is not a mere release of activity brought about by the
play of initiating factors on his organization” (p. 55, italics in original).
The methodological approach of this study allowed concepts and ideas to emerge.
Instead of asking supervisors and teachers to define their experiences with peer coaching
by using predetermined categories and ideas, such as on a survey, the design of this study
allowed for the evolution of general categories and their properties and for integrating
concepts through the actual words and actions of the supervisors and teachers who
participated in the study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The guiding research question for this study was broad based to allow for the
emergence of concepts that were important to the participants and supervisors of the peer
coaching program. The question, How do supervisors and teachers experience
participation in a peer coaching program? allowed the participants to identify and to
explore the meanings that their interactions held for them in this peer coaching program.
Context of the Study
In order to secure a research site, the researcher contacted several people to ask
for their knowledge of schools with peer coaching programs. In addition, the researcher
contacted the staff development offices of several counties around her own. Each county
29
identified schools that had programs called peer coaching. The researcher also contacted
a local research center to inquire about their knowledge of peer coaching programs. The
researcher then set about contacting these various schools. As the search progressed,
schools were eliminated from the list for various factors. Most had programs that were
called peer coaching but were in fact study groups: Teachers were not engaged with each
other beyond discussing certain topics. Other schools were eliminated because their peer
coaching programs had ceased to exist. Jones High School was selected for the study
because it was the only school in the metropolitan region that had a viable peer coaching
program that included observations.
Jones High School, located in a southeastern metropolitan region, had been in
operation for 17 years at the beginning of the study. The school was located in a suburban
area considered to be middle class. The median price for homes was around $106,000.
More than 84% of the students who graduated from Jones High School with a college
prep diploma go on to attend college, compared to a county rate of 86%. There were
approximately 2,100 students in this 9th-through-12th-grade school. Approximately 70%
of the students were white, 25% were African American, and the remaining 5%
represented countries from around the world. Representing its county, Jones High School
has been named a state school of excellence.
The school was located in one of the largest school districts in the country. The
county in which Jones High School was located served 116,424 students and had 52
elementary schools, 16 middle schools, 14 high schools and 6 special schools. The county
was known throughout the state and the Southeast for its strong focus on staff
development. Teachers were usually paid a stipend for attending staff development
30
classes that were offered year-round. In addition, members of the professional staff not
only attended local, state, and national conferences but also served as presenters and
board members of the hosting organizations.
At the time of the study, the average teaching experience of the entire faculty was
approximately 12 years. Two thirds of the faculty held an advanced graduate degree. The
teachers in this study were voluntary participants in the peer coaching program. Their
years of teaching experience, averaging 12.73, ranged from 7 to 18 years. Of the teaching
participants in the study, 2 were male and 13 were female.
Jones High School faculty members were no strangers to research. The school
was the only school in the county to research and make a decision to change to a 4 × 4
block schedule for students. Recent research conducted at the study site has or will have
resulted in the publication of four doctoral dissertations.
At the time of this study, Jones High School had had a voluntary peer coaching
program for 2 years. The program was developed and initiated by three teachers and an
administrator. At the time of the study, any teacher in the school could participate in the
program. The peer coaching program was given as a professional-development choice.
Teachers could choose between participating in traditional supervisor observations or the
peer coaching program. Those choosing the traditional observation were observed by a
supervisor (either the principal, assistant principals, or a department head) using the state-
developed observation instrument.
Participants in the peer coaching program who had less than 3 years of teaching
experience were also required to participate in the traditional observation by a supervisor.
31
Participants in the program with more than 3 years of experience did not have to
participate in the state-mandated observations conducted by the school’s supervisors.
The peer coaching program was first introduced midway through the school year,
in January. The supervising administrator of the program held a brief introductory
session. There were 26 teachers who chose to participate. Because peer coaching was
first offered midyear, several teachers who had already participated in supervisor
observations chose not to participate in the peer coaching program. At the beginning of
the 2nd school year, a videotaped presentation and testimonials from the previous year’s
participants were used to inform teachers about the program. Sixty-two teachers chose to
participate the 2nd year. At the time of the study, Jones High School was the only school
in the countywide system to use such a program in place of supervisor observations. The
only structural guidelines of the program were that the participating teachers each choose
a target behavior and then participate in a pre-conference, observation, and post-
conference.
Methodology of Grounded Theory and Constant Comparative Analysis
The researcher used a grounded theory protocol that allowed themes to emerge
from conceptual categories that were derived closely from the analysis of data. The
researcher was not able, with the given database, to generate theory but rather generated a
thematic description of the experiences of the participants. The researcher, rather than
striving to validate preconceived ideas or theories with data, used a grounded theory
protocol which provided the framework for the data to reveal these themes. This
framework was provided by the constant comparative analysis of emerging categories
within the data. By comparing data to data, incident to incident, and category to category,
32
the researcher was able to generate themes that described the perspectives of the teachers
and supervisors. The following description of the stages and components of grounded
theory and the constant comparative analysis provided a template of actions for the
researcher as well a guideline for collection and inspection of the data.
Data Sources
Participants of this study were the supervisors and teachers involved in a peer
coaching program in a high school (grades 9 through 12) in northeastern Georgia. Fifteen
teachers and three supervisors participated in this study. Patton’s (1990) guidelines for
purposeful selection of informants based on the amount of information that they could
provide about the peer coaching program guided the process of participant selection. The
rationale of purposeful sampling is to “increase the utility of information obtained from
small samples” (p. 105). The school selected for this study was a high school that had an
established peer coaching program in place for 2 years prior to the beginning of this
study. The researcher became familiar with the research site by its reputation in the
county and the reputation of the school site’s administrator, who was also working on a
doctorate at the University of Georgia (UGA).
Once permission was granted to conduct the research at the subject site, the
researcher:
1. Obtained permission to conduct this research through the IRB at UGA,
2. Obtained a list of the teachers and supervisors involved in the peer
coaching program. Sixty-two teachers were on the list.
33
3. Eliminated the veteran teachers involved in the program because this cadre of
teachers was involved in another study already in progress at the subject
site. Veteran teachers were defined as those teachers who had 20 or more
years of experience.
4. Reduced the list to 31 teachers. The researcher contacted these
teachers by telephone at the subject site. From this list, 15 teachers agreed
to participate in the study.
Participants of the program were included in this study based on their availability
and willingness to participate in the study. Efforts were made to contact every available
participant of the program. Fifteen teachers and three administrators were interviewed for
this study. Each participant signed a consent form (see Appendix E)
Of the teaching participants, two were white males and thirteen were white
females. The average teaching experience of these participants was 12.7 years. Ranging
from 18 years of experience to 7 years of experience. Six of the 15 teachers were first
year participants.
Two of the supervisors were white females and one was a white male. The
average supervisory experience of the supervisors was 10.2 years. Of the supervisors, one
held a doctorate degree, one was a doctoral candidate, and one had a specialist’s degree.
Interviewing was the primary data collection method used for this study. In
addition to the interviews, document artifacts (e.g., program description, newsletters, and
reports) were also collected and analyzed. Interviewing was used as the primary data-
collection tool in order to discern how individuals acted “toward things on the basis of
the meanings that the things have for them” (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). The interview,
34
according to Bogdan and Biklen (1998), “[was] used to gather descriptive data in the
subjects’ own words so that the researcher [could] develop insights on how subjects
interpret some piece of the world” (p. 94). These open-ended interviews were conducted
with both the supervisors and the teachers involved in the peer coaching program. These
in-depth interviews were “directed toward understanding informants’ perspectives” on
their peer coaching experiences as expressed in their own words (Bogdan & Taylor,
1998, p. 88). In total, each participant (teachers: N = 15; supervisors: N = 3) was
interviewed once over a 3 month period. Each interview lasted approximately one hour
each. In addition to the interviews, the researcher followed up with informal member
checks informing the participants of developing categories and themes and asking for
additional thoughts.
Interview Structure
In order to determine the participants’ perspectives, the interviews were open-
ended, and two basic questions were asked of every participant. Interview questions for
supervisors included: (a) Describe your experiences in this peer coaching program with
fellow supervisors, and (b) describe your experiences in this peer coaching program with
teachers participating in the program. Interview questions for teachers included: (a)
Describe your experiences in this peer coaching program with fellow peer coaches, and
(b) describe your experiences in this peer coaching program with supervisors. The
researcher’s effort to allow the participants to describe their experience fully was
augmented by explaining that the interview was a spiraling process, and that as the
researcher and interviewee proceeded through the interview, the researcher would often
35
ask the initial interview question again in order for the participant to add to or supplement
what they had already disclosed.
The researcher did not conduct additional face-to-face interviews with each
participant for the following reasons. First, follow-up questions were used in each
interview to verify information as well as to allow for additional information to emerge
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Second, the researcher took time during each interview to
return to the initial open-ended questions and review with each participant their
responses. This allowed the participants to offer additional data. As the researcher
continued to interview additional participants and analyze the data, no new categories
emerged even though the same open-ended questions were asked of each participant. By
returning to the initial questions several times during each interview, the researcher was
satisfied that no new information had or would be revealed. The researcher was satisfied
that theoretical saturation had been achieved (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Finally, at the conclusion of the data analysis, each participant was informed of
the research results and given the opportunity to add additional thoughts or comments.
All but one participant replied and no additional categories or themes were revealed in
this follow-up. Each interview was transcribed by the researcher and resulted in over 130
single-spaced pages of transcript data, approximately 70,000 words.
Fieldnotes
During the interview process, fieldnotes were utilized to supplement the
researcher’s tape recordings and to record her comments relative to the interview and
subject (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The researcher kept a separate notebook for both
36
fieldnotes and research memos. Initial entries detailed the process of contacting
participants and arranging interview times.
Fieldnotes generated after the interviews became the “written account of what the
researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting
on the data” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p. 74). At the conclusion of each interview, the
researcher took time to record any thoughts, comments, or additional information that
would help to describe the participant’s experience in the peer coaching program.
Bogdan and Biklen (1998) described two purposes of these fieldnotes: description
and reflection. Description was necessary due to the strictly auditory nature of tape
recordings. Gestures, facial expressions, and body language, which are all components
relative to the data collection process, are missed on a tape recording. The fieldnotes also
consisted of the researcher’s comments and included things such as feelings, hunches,
interpretations, preconceptions, and biases (Bogdan & Taylor, 1998). In addition, the
researcher’s fieldnotes included comments about unique ideas that were sparked by the
participant’s responses, special circumstances, and the construction of charts and
diagrams that helped the researcher to track what participants were saying. Later,
fieldnotes were transcribed and then examined alongside interview transcripts and
program documents.
Research Memos
Memos also contributed to the data collected by becoming a sortable fund for
analysis in order to aid the theory-generating process (Glaser, 1978). Memos consisted of
personal notes, that were separate from the fieldnotes and were progress reports about the
research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Bogdan and Biklen (1982) described research memos
37
as “think pieces” (p.87). These memos contained written records of researcher’s analysis
related to how the developing categories of the study connected to one another (Glaser &
Strauss). Memos were written to elaborate on fieldnotes as well as to flesh out ideas and
thoughts as categories (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss). During the process of identifying
categories, relationships, and themes, the researcher continually referred to over twenty
transcribed pages of fieldnotes, research memos, and diagrams in order to represent fully
the perspectives of the teachers and supervisors.
Data Analysis and Collection Procedures
The constant comparative method of data analysis aided the researcher throughout
the study in both initial and subsequent development of the categories, properties, and
themes (Glaser, 1978). Throughout this process, ideas and thoughts by the researcher
were recorded in memos and used in the comparative process to facilitate theoretical
sampling. Lending to the validity and credibility of the methods and theory generated by
this study, the method of constant comparative analysis allowed the researcher to let the
data speak for itself (Glaser, 1978).
Constant Comparative Method
To begin the analysis process, the researcher engaged in open coding of the data.
Each interview was transcribed by the researcher and then coded in a line-by-line
analysis. During this process, over forty codes were generated (See Appendix A). As
codes were generated, each incident was compared to other incidents. Abbreviations of
significant words or thoughts in the transcribed data were often used as codes (see Figure
1).
38
Whether it was from interviews, documents, or fieldnotes, the open coding of data
allowed the researcher to generate codes that were not forced upon the data by the
researcher with presumed, preconceived labels, but allowed to emerge from the data
itself. This constant comparison of data-generated codes built categories that described
the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Figure 1
Coding of Data
Significant Words/Thoughts Code
Choice of peer coaching partner CHOI
Anticipated or received benefits BENE
Comfortableness with partner COMF
Feedback from supervisor SUPFDBK
Feedback from peer FDBK
Negative feelings toward current supervision
GTEP
Non-evaluative feedback NONEV
The second stage of comparison shifted the emphasis from comparing incident to
incident to comparing incidents to categories (see Figure 2). For example, describing
their peer coaching experiences, every participant detailed some part of their personal
motivation for participating in the program. As initial responses were coded, basic codes
such as goals (GOAL), conditions (COND), comfort (COMF), appreciation (APPR),
choice (CHOI), dissatisfaction (STATE OBSERVATION), and active (ACTV) emerged.
39
These codes, along with additional coding and analysis of data, revealed the emergence
of the categories of relationships (RELAT), elements of dissatisfaction (DISS), and
program structure (STRUC). Using theoretical sampling, the researcher continued to code
by collecting and analyzing data in order to fully develop the categories and their
properties. After the completion of several interviews, using the constant comparative
method, the researcher collapsed those codes and began to code for the category of
motivation (MOTIV), then proceeded to further define this category and its properties. At
the same time, initial analysis of interview data resulted in codes such as feedback
(FDBK), reflection (REFLEC), and appreciation (APPR), which combined to become the
substantive category of benefits (BENE).
Figure 2
Emergent Categories
Initial Emergent Categories
Supervisor behavior Supervisor expectations
Who to peer coach with Time
Future plans Evaluation
Influence of others Nonthreatening relationships
Feedback Isolation
Throughout this process, theoretical sensitivity guided the researcher in
developing categories and their properties. The researcher conducted multiple readings of
the transcripts over an extended period of time. The multiple readings helped the
40
researcher in fully developing these categories and allowing for the emergences of new
categories, and it ultimately led to the theoretical saturation of the categories. As a result
of the analysis of coding, the researcher identified two substantive categories, motivation
and benefits, as comprising “the empirical substance of the area of research” (Glaser,
1978, p. 55).
Theoretical Coding
As categories and their properties became saturated, the theoretical sensitivity
guided the researcher through the process of theoretical coding. Theoretical coding
conceptualized “how the substantive codes [related] to each other” (Glaser, 1978, p. 55)
and helped in the development of themes for theoretical consideration. By process of
comparison, the researcher had discovered that the anticipation of benefits was found to
be a motivating factor as the participants described their experiences. Additionally, once
participants were engaged in the program, the benefits they received became a source of
motivation to continue in the program. Thus, the previously separate emergent category,
benefits, was found to be a component of motivation. The combination of these two
categories, along with their properties, formed the higher-level concept of motivation
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Motivation was then identified as the overlying core category.
This theoretical category was then examined for subcategories that helped to define it in
terms of such things as dimensions, conditions, and consequences (Glaser & Strauss).
This core category defined the “main concern or problem for people in the
setting” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 95). According to Glaser (1978), the core category
must: (a) be central, that is relate to as many other categories and their properties as
possible; (b) reoccur frequently in the data; (c) be given time to become saturated; (d) not
41
be forced; and (e) “have clear and grabbing implications for formal theory” (p. 95). The
core category related the central categories to each other, lending to the formation of
themes that clarify the perspectives of participants. The core category of motivation also
linked the substantive categories in such a way that the perspectives of the teachers and
supervisors were revealed in their own words and descriptions. Within the core category
of motivation, several subcategories emerged: areas of dissatisfaction, relationships,
benefits, and organizational aspects of the program.
The researcher, following suggested guidelines (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser,
1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), spread the work of theoretical coding over an extended
period of time. Each interview was coded twice and then analyzed for basic themes.
In addition to interviews, the researcher was allowed access to documents
pertaining to the peer coaching program. These documents included anonymous
responses to an end-of-year survey given to all participants of the program (see Appendix
D), forms from coaches describing their activities, as well as handouts and training
materials used by the supervising administrator.
Throughout the work of coding and analyzing, three concepts guided the
researcher: theoretical sampling, theoretical sensitivity, and theoretical saturation.
Theoretical sampling was a deductive process by which the researcher was able to make
decisions about future data collection based on her analysis of the emerging categories
(Glaser, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). During the study, the
researcher decided where and what data to collect next. It was a process of regrouping
that facilitated the emerging development of categories, properties of categories, and,
ultimately, theoretical discussions. A task that was fundamental to the process of
42
theoretical sampling was choosing relevant research groups (participants) that would
further the generation of categories and properties of categories and ultimately lead to the
generation of theory. Because exposing and connecting relationships among concepts and
sets of concepts was key to attempting to generate theory, theoretical sampling allowed
the researcher to “jointly collect, code, and analyze data in order to decide what data to
collect next and where to find them” (Glaser & Strauss, p. 45). This process, theoretical
sampling, was a crucial step in developing themes that were inductively derived from the
study of the phenomenon they represented (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The theoretical sensitivity of the researcher guided the process of collecting and
coding data and assisted the researcher in making and supporting decisions about
theoretical sampling, coding, and analysis (Glaser, 1978). Thus, starting with general
questions, theoretical sensitivity guided the researcher in deciding the subsequent
direction of the research based on analysis of gathered data. This was achieved through a
continual cycle of analysis and data collection during the actual research process (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). By using a developing sense of theoretical sensitivity, the researcher
was guided in the data collection process by the emerging categories and their properties
(Glaser & Strauss).
Finally, the theoretical sensitivity of the researcher helped to determine saturation
of codes and categories and their properties and guided the theoretical coding process to
saturation (Glaser, 1978). Saturation of categories occurred when new incidents no longer
produced new categories or enhanced the properties of existing categories (Glaser).
43
Reliability and Validity
Qualitative researchers who are confident in their methods have different
concerns about reliability and validity than their quantitative counterparts. Validity for
this study was based on the holistic, inductive, and naturalistic character of the study.
Firsthand knowledge of the phenomenon provided by the researcher’s use of methods
enhanced the validity of this study (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). The inquiry method chosen
by the researcher was used to understand the “gestalt, the totality, and the unifying nature
of the setting” (Patton, 1990, p. 40). The inductive process used attempted “to make sense
of the situation without imposing preexisting expectations on the research setting”
(Patton, p. 40), and the study was naturalistic in that the researcher did not attempt to
manipulate the research setting. In order to make them comfortable, participants were
allowed to choose the place and time for their individual interview. The researcher took
time at the beginning of each interview to explain the process in order to put the
participants at ease. Every effort was made to establish a trusting relationship with each
participant.
In pursuing validation, Blumer (1969) called for a “direct examination of the
empirical world” (p. 34). He stated:
This world is the actual group life of human beings. It consists of what they
experience and do, individually and collectively, as they engage in their
respective forms of living. Symbolic interactionists recognize that the genuine
mark of an empirical science is to respect the nature of its empirical world—to fit
its problems, its guiding conceptions, its procedures of inquiry, its techniques of
study, its concepts, and its theories to that world. The concepts and propositions
44
of symbolic interactionism are devised for the direct examination of the empirical
social world. Their value and validity are to be determined in the examination and
in the seeing how they fare when subjected to the alien criteria of an irrelevant
methodology. (p. 49)
For this study, initial codes were actual words or phrases used by participants.
The same open-ended questions were asked of each teacher and each supervisor. Often
the same question was asked several times in a particular interview to give the participant
an opportunity to add depth to the description of their experiences. According to Janesick
(1994), “validity in qualitative research has to do with description and explanation, and
whether or not a given explanation fits a given description” (p. 216). By allowing
participants to describe their experiences in their own words, the validity of this study
was strengthened.
Reliability as defined by quantitative researchers is a different concern than it is
for qualitative researchers. No two researchers will enter a setting and record exactly the
same thing. Their own interpretivist nature filters what they see and record (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1982). Reliability for qualitative researchers is concerned with whether or not the
findings of a subsequent researcher will be consistent with their own findings. The use of
methods, including detailing their own biases and subjectivities, help qualitative
researchers enhance the reliability of their studies and the ability of others to understand
their work.
Triangulation of data sources and the saturation of data also strengthened the
internal validity of the study. Goetz and LeCompte (1984) described the process of
triangulation as one that includes multiple data sources and multiple collection and
45
analysis methods. Data for this study was collected from multiple sources: interview
transcripts from supervisors and teachers, informal follow-ups with participants
confirming interview data, and documents pertaining to the peer coaching program such
as supervisors notes and end-of-year surveys contributed to the validity of the findings. In
addition, the researcher did not examine supervisor notes and results from the end-of-year
surveys until all of the interviews were completed, thus confirming the themes developed
from the interview data.
By collecting sufficient data, saturation showed that new data did not expand the
meaning of a category. Saturation contributed to content validity by supporting
theoretical development, processing through potential rival hypotheses, and delimiting
the theory (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Control of Bias
As mentioned before, a concern often expressed with regard to qualitative
research is the biases the researcher brings to the study. Bogdan and Biklen (1982) stated,
“Qualitative researchers are concerned with the effect their own subjectivity may have on
the data they produce” (p. 42). And though it is not possible to be completely free of bias,
the researcher should make every attempt to reveal those biases and employ means to
transcend them (Bogdan & Biklen, Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The researcher in this study
used the same open-ended questions with each participant in the study. In addition,
repeated readings and coding of the interview transcripts over an extended period of time
provided the researcher a fresh look at the data. This aided the researcher in transcending
her opinions and biases to reveal the concerns of the participants. The researcher also had
access to school documents that concerned the program. These documents were
46
examined after all interviews were transcribed and coded, and thus provided the
researcher with verifying data.
Subjectivity Statement
In addition to employing research methods to control biases, Bogdan and Biklen
(1982) emphasized the researcher’s identification of her biases. At the time of the study,
the researcher had been a practicing supervisor for 3 years. Though employed at another
school system, the researcher worked and lived in the county where the study site was
located.
As a classroom teacher for 15 years, the researcher’s experiences with
professional development were limited to the traditional “sit and get” programs where
teachers sit and listen to lectures on teaching techniques. It was not until the researcher
began work on her master’s degree that she began to understand that there were
alternative methods of professional development. It was during this time that the
researcher became heavily involved in planning the staff development programs at her
school. It was through these efforts that the researcher became exposed to the concept of
peer coaching.
As the researcher began examining and exploring alternative staff development
activities, she was asked to become a supervisor. As a supervisor, the researcher was
involved, in a limited way, with the establishment of a peer coaching program at her
school. At the time of the study, the peer coaching program at the researcher’s school was
in its infancy stage and little interaction had occurred between the researcher and teachers
with regard to this program.
47
As a supervisor, the researcher has subscribed to an empowering approach of
supervision. The supervisor has taken every opportunity to provide those teachers with
whom she works individual attention with regard to their professional-development
needs. She has helped to develop a professional development program that offers teachers
input and choices with regard to their professional development.
At the time of the study, the researcher knew only one of the supervisors involved
in the peer coaching program. The researcher had met this supervisor in graduate classes
and had listened to presentations the supervisor had made regarding the peer coaching
program. The researcher knew that this supervisor held similar views to her own with
regard to the involvement of teachers in directing their own professional growth. The
researcher did not personally know any of the teachers participating in the study.
Although it is not possible for researchers to put aside their biases completely
when conducting research, it is often these very biases that provide the impetus for study.
By identifying her biases and employing rigorous research methods (Bogdan & Biklen,
1982), the researcher has sought to reduce the subjectivity of this study.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents findings from the participating teachers and supervisors of
this peer coaching program. Throughout the data collection process, the researcher sought
to ascertain the main concern of the participants (Glaser, 1978). This chapter presents
findings first from the teachers and then from the supervisors.
Teachers
When asked to describe their experiences in the peer coaching program, over half
of the teachers began by detailing their motivation to participate (see Appendix B). Some
teachers talked only of their initial motivation while others went on to detail the reasons
they were motivated to continue. As the researcher identified and analyzed the data, two
categories best described the experiences of the teaching participants: motivation and
benefits.
Teachers most often described their motivation to participate in six ways (see
Figure 3). First, they described their dissatisfaction with current supervision, especially
the supervisor-controlled observations. Second, teachers described their desire to improve
their teaching practice and learn something new. Third, teachers described their
motivation in terms of the relationships they had or hoped to have with their peer coach.
Finally, teachers described how different components of the program’s organization
motivated them to participate.
47
48
Figure 3
Themes of Teachers’ Experiences
Motivating Factors
Dissatisfaction with current supervision
Desire to improve teaching
Relationship with coach
Organization of program
Meaningful feedback
Reflection
In addition to motivation, teachers described their peer coaching experiences in
terms of the benefits they had received or hoped to receive. These benefits included
meaningful feedback and reflection (see Figure 3). Following is a discussion of each of
the supporting areas of motivation and benefits illustrated by the comments of the
participants of the peer coaching program.
Motivation
When asked to describe their experiences in the peer coaching program, over half
of the teachers detailed their experiences in terms of what motivated them to initially
participate in the program. The motivating factors were dissatisfaction with the current
supervision, the desire to improve their teaching practice and learn something new,
relationships with their coaches, and choices offered by the program’s organization.
49
Motivation I: Dissatisfaction
Teachers were motivated to participate in the peer coaching program because of
dissatisfaction with the current supervisory system. Eleven of the 15 teachers described
their negative feelings toward the current supervisory system as a motivation to
participate in the peer coaching program (see Appendix B). Teachers described the
components of this dissatisfaction as unsatisfactory interactions with supervisors, the
meaninglessness of the state’s observation instrument, and the artificial nature of the
observed situation.
Unsatisfactory interactions with supervisors.
Participants in the program were often dissatisfied with their interactions with
their supervisors. Though most believed it was unintentional, they found it difficult to
connect with their supervisors. Teachers indicated that they felt they were imposing on
supervisors and that they were not comfortable with all of their supervisors. Teachers also
believed their supervisors were dissatisfied with the current observation process and
therefore rushed simply to fulfill a state mandated requirement.
Theresa, a 2nd year participant of the program, believed she was asking too much
of her supervisors to be involved in professional activities that demanded more of a busy
supervisor’s time: “I feel that we don’t really allow much room for professional focus on
teaching. I can’t ask the administrators to do much of that when I know their plate is
already full.” Mary, also a 2nd year participant of the program, spoke of simply being
uncomfortable with particular supervisors: “I mean, if it had been another administrator
doing this program, I might not have done it. I don’t feel comfortable with a lot of our
administrators.”
50
In addition to the teachers’ dissatisfaction, they believed the supervisors were also
dissatisfied. Several teachers noted that often they got signals, both verbal and nonverbal,
from supervisors that indicated the supervisors’ dissatisfaction with the current
observation process. Liz, a 1st year participant of the program noted:
Sometimes the administrator who is assigned to observe you is someone who sees
that as something to check off a list. To get it done and to be finished with it.
They don’t for the most part enjoy doing it [observations] so it is kind of a relief
for them that they don’t have to be bothered with it.
Alice, who had participated in the program for 2 years, believed supervisors were
dissatisfied with the process because they seemed to be in a rush to take care of business
that was less than important to them:
I think, the reason I was attracted to peer coaching was because in the past when
we were [observed using the state instrument], it would be the end of school year,
you know May first, and the supervisor would say I have to [observe] you.
Jennifer, a 2nd year participant of the program, also described her frustration with
current supervisory interactions. While she believed that the administration “trusts what
we are doing and that we are doing a good job,” she believed that “they really don’t have
a clue as to what we do and how we do it.” She also believed, based on her observation of
supervisors’ comments and actions, that supervisors viewed classroom observations as an
annoyance.
Meaningless observation instrument.
Though teachers were frustrated with their interactions with supervisors, they
also expressed their dissatisfaction over the use of the state observation instrument.
51
Teachers perceived the use of this instrument as meaningless and providing negligible
feedback. They described situations involving the use of this instrument as useless and
stressful. Often teachers were unclear as to the time, purpose, and result of these
observations.
William, a current teacher and former administrator, believed that teachers
participated in peer coaching because of the feeling that they had to perform for a
supervisor’s state-designed observation:
Again, [the state mandated observation] seems to me to be more of a, what is the
term, a ‘dog and pony show’. Where I think that when someone comes in under
the [state’s observation] format, you feel that you have to be mister or miss
perfect, and some teachers feel that they have to perform.
Ken, a 2nd year participant, described his experiences with the traditional supervisor
observations, which he also found to be meaningless and stressful:
I am not nervous until I get the form. I never even saw them in my classroom and
then I see all these dots and bubbles. Did I really do that? I was always stressed
out after the fact. I guess that I wasn’t convinced that it was really measuring what
it was supposed to measure.
Other teachers found this observation frustrating and meaningless because the
purpose of the supervisor’s observation was unclear. William found he lacked
understanding of the purpose of the traditional supervisor observation:
[T]he thing with [the state’s observation] is, you have an individual coming in and
you are never quite sure what it is that they are looking for, and also you don’t
know what their particular bias is in terms of teaching methodologies. So you are
52
just kind of out there groping around hoping that they are going to give you a fair
general overview.
Angie, a 1st year participant, described that her motivation for participating in the
program also stemmed from her dissatisfaction with the supervisor-controlled
observations:
Nobody likes for an administrator to come in and see 20, maybe 17, minutes of
what you do. It is not realistic. And the thing is, if something goes wrong in that
20 minutes, then that is all they remember with the [state observation]. They see a
very small sampling of what you can do and then they rate you on that. With [peer
coaching], you got to see transition activities, you got to see the good and the bad
and there was time to have the actual feedback and the conference, the post-
conference to actually learn something from it.
Mary also found these supervisor-controlled observations worthless. Though she
spent more time on peer coaching than she did the traditional observations, she felt it was
worth the extra time:
It does take a lot more time. And you know how it is with time. But I think it’s
worth it, the trade off, because I spent probably at least 20 hours this year as
opposed to pretty much nothing for [state observation]. They just come in and
watch you and that is it.
Though Donna, a 2nd year participant, felt comfortable with her supervisors, she
did not believe that she engaged in an observation process with them that was profitable
due to the short amount of time involved:
53
I have always felt comfortable having them in there, but I have never felt that that
process was particularly profitable for me as a teacher. Number one, we never had
a pre-conference even though I know that you are supposed to. But that is kind of
optional. So if you really wanted to go in and say “let me tell you about my
class”, I am sure they would be eager to have me do that. Because of time, I don’t
think most people ever do that. So there was no pre-conferencing. They typically
stay with you for about twenty minutes. Because of the time demand. So they
didn’t know anything about your class. You haven’t been able to explain to them
[the supervisors] that this pocket of people over here might be disruptive, try to
ignore them.
Artificial nature of supervisor observations.
Teachers were also motivated because of their dissatisfaction with supervisor
observations due to the artificial nature of these observations. Theresa found that she felt
like a performer. “An administrator coming in and observing tends to be very artificial. I
feel a little bit like I am playing to the audience.” William also found that the contrived
situation and vagueness of feedback encountered in the traditional supervisor
observations led to dissatisfaction. Other teachers expressed their dissatisfaction by
calling it a waste of time. Liz believed anyone could look like they knew what they were
doing for one day:
I feel like the [state mandated observation] program is a complete waste of time. I
just don’t think it is an effective way of finding out what is happening with a
teacher in that classroom. Generally, the administrator will come in sometime
during the school year. And you know what? Anybody can fake it for a day. It
54
doesn’t matter how good or how bad you are, anybody can spend one day getting
the little checks on the [state mandated observation] form. And I just don’t think
that is useful, productive. I think it is a waste of administrators’ time.
Alice also found the situation frustrating because she had to manufacture a
situation in which to be observed:
It was a formality. Plus, by the end of the year, it is difficult to manufacture a
situation that is really good for your supervisor to see because everything is
winding down. I almost felt like this was meaningless because I had to almost beg
a teacher to let me teach her class.
Still other teachers described their experience with the current observation process
as one of futility. From their experiences, teachers believed that administrators could not
relate to what they went through on a daily basis. Alice noted: “I have always been sort of
frustrated by the observation process. Because, well we have great administrators at our
school, but they don’t really have a clue as to what we do and how we do it.”
In addition to feeling like an actor in a contrived situation, teachers were
dissatisfied because what the supervisor saw in that short, unfocused amount of time did
not provide a complete picture. Mary expressed her frustration with the current
observation process because it was not enough time to really see what kind of teacher she
was:
[The state observation] would be okay if they actually came in…once a week for
a month. Or followed up. Like if you started a lesson and you had to teach a
follow-up, coming in again. But just coming in out of the blue for 20 minutes, like
one is in September, one is in December, one is in May, big deal. I mean to me
55
that is like nothing. I don’t know if you feel that way. I understand they have to
do something. But to me, that is not seeing what a teacher is like. Three times in a
whole entire year for 20 minutes.
Jennifer, a 2nd year participant, also found it difficult to identify a purpose for supervisor
observations: “I understood that it was all about filling out pieces of paper and if you
really had a problem, that wasn’t when it was going to be solved.”
These observation not only lacked time, function, and purpose, but teachers also
found that the observations did not represent the reality of teachers’ situations. Betty, a
1st year participant, was motivated to participate because she found her administrators
did not usually observe her everyday situation:
I know when I was [observed using the state instrument], my principal came in
and just did it. He was in there 15 minutes, then he was out of there. So the reason
I think it [peer coaching]is better is you are being actually looked at by people
who are in the classroom. Not someone who has been out of the classroom for 15
years. Whereas with [your peer coach] I think you see the real truth. It is also…it
seems like the [state observation] was—I always got great reviews on my [state
observations], but I felt more like I was in a situation to be criticized rather than
maybe empowered or motivated.
Melaney, a 1st year participant, also described the seeming lack of
purpose of the supervisor observations:
They didn’t come to watch me for any specific reason. It was just a form that they
had to fill out. They don’t know what you are working on, and they don’t know
what you have been dealing with. But, it just is not very valuable.
56
Sandra, who had participated in the program for 2 years, also found the observations to
lack function. She did not find the supervisor-controlled observations to be helpful or
beneficial and she believed peer coaching was a valuable alternative:
I don’t mind [the state observation], but I did not find it helpful. And I thought
that this [peer coaching] might be of some benefit. Which I never thought [the
state observation] was [helpful]…if you know somebody is rotten, they’re rotten.
Anyway, I always thought that that process was to make sure you were awake in
class or something.
This [peer coaching] was an alternative here. And something that was
helpful. I can’t compare them [supervisor-controlled observations and peer
coaching] because they aren’t really similar. I don’t have a lot of respect for the
[state observation] process because a lot of times the [person conducting the state
observation] knew absolutely nothing about my area…I know that you gather an
impression about [a class]. You know if it is being handled well and that sort of
thing. So I felt like it was just to make sure things were going okay. But I have
always felt that an administrator walking the halls would know if someone is
doing a good job, teaching from bell to bell.
We do a dog and pony show every day. I never knew when they were
coming in. So I just don’t have a lot of respect for that. I don’t think it was helpful
at all to me as a teacher.
In summary, teachers were motivated to participate in a program they saw as a
viable alternative to a system they believed had failed them. They indicated that their
interactions with their supervisors were unsatisfactory because the supervisors did not
57
provide satisfactory or meaningful feedback. These teachers also found that the state
observation instrument and the way it was used by the supervisors provided less-than-
adequate information for professional growth. They believed that the supervisors did not
get a true picture of their professional ability in a one-time, short observation that often
took place in an artificial situation.
Motivation 2: Desire to improve
Teachers were influenced to participate in the peer coaching program because of
personal dissatisfaction with their teaching and a desire to improve their practice. The
desire to learn something new or to improve their teaching was often mentioned as a
motivating factor for the teachers (see Appendix B). Teachers had already indicated that
they were not getting valuable feedback from the current supervisory system. Most often,
the participating teachers would then go on to describe their desire to participate in
activities that would provide ideas and opportunities to practice techniques that would
improve their teaching practice.
William noted that he desired something different and superior to the previous
professional activities in which he had engaged:
I believe in the things that I am telling you. I believe and I knew that when the
opportunity came this year to change and do something differently, and I had a
chance to actually hear more about the program, I said, “Yeah this is definitely
something superior to what we had. So there is no point in not doing it.” I see it as
an improvement in the way teachers can assess their work. I am always interested
in improving what I do.
58
Gail, a 2nd year participant, participated in the peer coaching program “to learn
something new, to be able to see someone else, to see how they were in the classroom,
and to give me advice.” Describing her experiences with her fellow coach, Judy said she
looked to her coach for another view of what was happening in her classroom in order to
improve her practice:
I was losing people, or so and so was sleeping. I could only keep track of them for
so long. So when it was mentioned that you could have a peer come in and
observe you, I was like. “That would be cool. That would be another set of eyes.”
Ken believed peer coaching would be the impetus for change that could help him
become a more effective teacher:
I think everybody reaches a plateau or rut in [his own] teaching style. And I think
it is good to see if [I] can change it up and see what I can do to be more
effective. So let’s see what I can do to make things a little more successful.
Even though it meant more work than the traditional observation, Mary believed
that by participating in the peer coaching program, she was going out of her way to
improve her teaching: “I wanted them to see me as a teacher. I wanted them to observe
me and say things like: ‘how you could explain things better?’ Or ‘how [did] you [pick
up] that the kids weren’t getting it?’”
Betty found that when she did the same thing day after day, she was not as
creative. She believed peer coaching was a vehicle for generating new ideas:
I just think that you do the same old thing day in and day out. The same old
humdrum. If you have been teaching for so many years, I just think that just like
with anything, you get stale. And whether it is a new class or new school or new
59
teaching situation, again, something new [peer coaching], new ideas are creative.
And I think that it means you are in a situation, you are teaching, you are wanting
to do your job better or be more effective and you are getting input and ideas from
your peers from things that have worked for them that you may not have thought
of. To me that is what it [peer coaching] was. A way to do your job better with
your peer sort of instructing you.
Elizabeth, a 2nd year participant of the program, found she also got ideas from
working with a peer. She described traditional teacher staff development experiences as
two-dimensional. She believed classes were generally situations in which she was told
what to do, but not given a chance to incorporate or practice:
At this point in my teaching career, I get more from working with someone [else],
getting ideas, getting them, going back and forth. Although I do go to classes, it is
a different kind of, I guess it makes the third dimension or something. Class is
very two-dimensional but seeing it in action is a three-dimensional thing.
Data from end-of-year survey also confirm the teachers’ desire to improve their
teaching practice. Teachers, responding to a question on the survey about professional
growth, outlined some of their desires for personal growth. Some ideas were simply use
of available resources: “I wanted to use more maps in lessons, more efficiently,” and “I
would like to improve in the recycling of material already taught.” Still others responded
to the survey by detailing a desired growth in classroom management. They sought to
improve in ways such as: (a)“behavior management of tech/high school,” (b)“becom[ing]
more consistent with my discipline observations/consequences,” (c) “increasing
[participation of] reluctant participants,” (d) “being more consistent with classroom rules
60
and being prepared with varied instructional activities,” (e)“motivating students who
really don’t want to be here,” and (f)“controlling noise level in classroom.”
Survey results confirmed a desire to improve professional relationships. Teachers
described their desire to improve by “continuing to build professional relationships
within my field and staying current on trends and issues in education” and improving
“parent to teacher dialogue.” Most teachers simply wrote that they wanted to improve
“instruction” and “class discipline.”
In summary, 7 of the 15 teachers cited the desire to improve as a motivating factor
to participate in the peer coaching program. This desire was further detailed by data
collected from the end-of-year survey.
Motivation 3: Relationships
Teachers were motivated to participate because of relationships they had or
planned to have with other teachers. Six of the 15 teachers described relationships of the
past, present, and future, that helped influence their participation and define their peer
coaching experience (See Appendix B). Sometimes it was the level of comfort, the
known relationship, that motivated teachers to participate. Teachers were also motivated
by a desire for a relationship with someone new who would help them find ways to
improve and expand their teaching abilities.
Established relationships.
A chance to work with someone with whom they had had a past relationship, and
with whom they were comfortable, motivated many teachers to participate in the
program. Alice, a 15-year veteran, had participated in the peer coaching program for 2
years. She had peer coached with the same person for those 2 years and described their
61
initial reasons for choosing each other. “We are both in the same environment,
understand each other and are accepting of each other.” As she described her interactions
in the program with her coach, she revealed, “We have always been peer coaching, but
this [particular program] gave her [her peer coach] something more objective to look at
rather than just to say it looks like there is participation.”
While it was a concern of several teachers that their coaches have something
objective to observe, other teachers opted for a more open approach in asking their coach
simply to observe. Describing her relationship with her peer coach, Mary stated, “she
knows me and we talk together. She knows my problems.”
Sandra found that her previous relationship with a friend was a place to start a
peer coaching relationship:
The first one was my best friend. We just thought we would enjoy [it]. We will
get together beforehand. It will be a good excuse for us to go out to eat or
something and have our little pre-conference. It was a good excuse for us to get
together.
In addition to past relationships, participants had current relationships that
motivated them to participate in the program. These relationships were often defined by
long-term friendships, sharing a classroom, or sharing coaching activities. Judy noted that
she had “always kind of talked with people anyway about what I was teaching.” William
noted that he was motivated to participate by the encouragement of a colleague:
It was suggested to me by a member of my department with whom I am very
comfortable. And we both determined that we would like to observe each other
and observe each other’s transitions under the 4 х 4 block schedule.
62
Liz, who had taught for 13 years at Jones High School, participated in the peer
coaching program for the first time during this study. In describing her experiences in the
program with her coach, she stated, “[I]t was a very comfortable kind of experience. It
was just kind of taking what we were already doing and it was very easy to talk to her.”
Liz found it easy to share ideas and frustrations. Because of their relationship, Liz and her
coach found it easy to include additional, informal observations and conferencing
activities in their peer coaching experience.
Mary also found a current teaching relationship was a motivating factor for her to
participate in the program:
It is great having another teacher’s perspective. The teacher I peer coached with
well, we have team taught for 10 years…I don’t know if I would have been that
comfortable with someone else. [It was] knowing she would be my peer coach
that made a difference, that made me more comfortable. A lot of the new teachers
this year came in, and they were brand new to the school and they didn’t know
anyone and so they just had to find someone. That is probably a little nerve-
racking itself. Having someone you don’t know coming in to observe. I felt
comfortable because I knew my peer coach.
Those who shared classrooms often found that relationship to be a motivating
factor to participate in peer coaching together, in that the observation and feedback
process was a natural and convenient extension of their situation. Liz noted:
[T]he only other person I have worked with actually happens to be my classroom
roommate. She and I have our desks and our supplies in the same room. She is a
part-time teacher and I am a full-time teacher. So she was teaching in that
63
classroom during my planning period. So it just worked out very well that we did
this together. So we were kind of in and out of the same room all the time
anyway. So it wasn’t any thing unusual for us to see what each other were doing.
It was very easy to work out when we would be sitting in each other’s classes.
Alice similarly noted, “We are both in the same environment, understand each others
jobs, and we are accepting of each other.”
Future relationships.
Teachers were also motivated to participate in peer coaching because they
believed new relationships would lead to desired benefits. These teachers described
future relationships that they believed would lead to new perspectives and ideas on their
own teaching experience. Mary noted: “I think it is helpful like I said. I want to continue
it; I much prefer it to [state observation]. I think I should also use someone else too.
Someone maybe I am less comfortable with.”
Alice also noted a desire to coach with someone with whom she was less familiar:
I know that there are teachers who peer coach with teachers in other departments
so it may be in the future I will have a language arts teacher to peer coach with me
because it might be good to get a perspective from another teacher. Somebody
that can give me a different perspective.
Liz also spoke of working with someone from another department, noting: “I
think it might be interesting…to pair up with somebody in another field. It would be very
interesting to sit back and see the kids interacting with another teacher. A completely
different kind of teacher.”
64
Though comfortableness was an issue for her, Mary also considered coaching
with a new partner:
I think you have to be comfortable with your peer coach…[M]y peer coach and I
team taught for so long that she knows me so well that maybe it would be better if
I go with someone else next year.
In summary, teachers found that their relationships with other teachers motivated
them to participate in the program. Their coaching relationships were based on things
such as long-term friendships, established teaching relationships, or relationships they
hoped to cultivate in order to grow professionally.
Although teachers were motivated to participate in the program because of
relationships of the past, present, and future, they were also motivated to participate in
the program because they had a relationship with their coach that was respectful, honest,
and nonthreatening.
Motivation 4: Honest and nonthreatening
Teachers were motivated to participate with coaches whom they respected and
trusted to be honest and non-threatening. Six of the 15 teachers described their coaching
relationships as trusting relationships (see Appendix B). It was important to many of the
teachers to engage in a coaching relationship with someone they respected and trusted.
Theresa described choosing her coach based on a relationship filled with respect and
honesty:
I think in a way, we are on the same plane intellectually and with our philosophies
about teaching. He might be a little more to the left of me. But we pretty much
understand and respect each other and are able to be honest with each other.
65
William noted that he believed that trust would translate into honest feedback:
“So we both knew going in what we were interested in observing and getting some
feedback on. And because we have a good rapport, we could be very straight with each
other.”
Ken, who described his peer coaching relationship as a “nonjudgmental sort of
thing,” repeatedly referred to the importance of the honest feedback he received in his
peer coaching experience. This nonconfrontational approach gave him insight about his
teaching performance:
It is very much information for me. You know that they were not judging my
teaching. They were just really helping me. I got to pick the areas that they were
helping me. You just don’t get that kind of feedback from other types of
observations.
Alice noted that peer coaching provided a positive avenue for feedback. “It is
nonthreatening. You don’t have to deal with being evaluated. You can be very honest
with each other. Informal. And supportive.”
The trust in the peer coaching relationship was often an extension of the teacher’s
own sense of security. For those less secure, participating in peer coaching was a matter
of choosing someone they could trust to be nonjudgmental. Those more secure chose
coaches they trusted to “give it to them straight.” William believed:
I think…there is a nonthreatening aspect to it. Which for teachers who are less
secure…I think they could actually be comfortable with the format of peer
coaching. And I think that as long as whoever they are working with is somebody
66
that they are comfortable working with, then there can be a little bit of candor
there and provide some useful feedback.
Many teachers viewed their coaches as nonjudgmental because they were often
told just the facts. Ken noted that peer coaching was an opportunity to get information
that was simply a replay of what happened in his classroom:
I know this is going to sound weird, but it was exciting. They are really going to
tell me the truth here. It was really insightful. It was never regimental. He was
always just “Here are the facts. Do with them what you want.”
William, a 16 year teaching veteran, first participated in peer coaching during the
2nd year of the program. He described his interactions with his peer coach as comfortable
and straightforward. William had chosen to participate in the peer coaching program
because he was asked to participate by someone whom he was comfortable with and
respected. Others agreed. Sandra noted, “It really does have to be somebody that you
respect as a teacher.”
Honesty was also an issue for some teachers. Jennifer believed it would be more
difficult to be honest with an administrator. She wanted a relationship with someone
going through the same day-to-day activities as herself. Jennifer said:.
And I can imagine that…a teacher…might be reluctant to be perfectly honest with
an administrator and say “I don’t feel like I have any sort of hold at all on this
academic level class. For example, I can’t keep their attention.” So I think it
allows you to be totally honest with somebody that you totally trust who is
knowledgeable, not just read it in a textbook this is the way you do it, but
somebody who has been there in that kind of classroom setting.
67
In summary, teachers described their peer coaching experience in terms of their
motivation to participate. They were motivated by relationships, past, present, and future
with coaches that they both trusted and respected.
Motivation 5:Trust and support from supervisor
Teachers participating in peer coaching described the supervisors’ role as one of
trust, support, and providing the freedom to direct their own professional development.
The role of the supervisor was described by 8 of the 15 teachers as one of trust and
support (see Appendix B). Supervisors provided a trusting, supportive environment that
gave teachers the freedom to direct their own professional development. Alice noted that
the involvement of her supervisors gave her freedom: “Once Marie introduced it to us
and gave us the format, we were pretty much independent.” Theresa told the researcher:
“We know what we are supposed to do. There is plenty of time to do it. How do we
know? E-mail and handouts. We can download the forms and everything.”
The teachers indicated that they believed the supervisors trusted them to develop
their own professional plan for peer coaching. Liz expressed to the researcher her
knowledge of the supervising administrator’s attitude toward her and her coach: “She
knows both of us and she knows we are going to do it without having somebody stay on
us to get it done.”
Ken also indicated this belief of trust. He believed that providing a program where
the teacher decided the direction they wanted to grow, the supervisors were helping
teachers become successful in their professional growth. Ken stated: “[They] are willing
to help teachers grow in ways other than just the standard way. They are really trying to
help us be successful.”
68
Judy described interaction with her supervisors that was limited to training and
program specifics such as providing substitute coverage. She felt a sense of being left
alone to do what needed to be done. She stated:
I feel when I got into the peer coaching program, that the administrative
supervision thing didn’t seem to be there anymore. It was a sense of being left to
work with other teachers instead of to work with an administrator.
Elizabeth noted that her interactions with supervisors were noncritical, and her
time with her coach, her friend, her colleague was more beneficial than with a supervisor.
She stated: “You can get through it [peer coaching] without feeling like someone is
grading you. That is the advantage of it over the [state observation].”
Though the teachers were in charge of their own participation in the program,
they felt the support of the administrative team. Gail spoke of the supervisor’s role of
support: “She [the administrating supervisor] is not leaving us out to hang by ourselves. I
think it is beneficial that she is there to support you in any way that you need it.” William
also described the supportive role of the supervisor and the administration:
She followed through to see how it was going. She is trying to encourage people
to move in the direction of doing it rather than shoving them in that direction.
That is the way the administration works here. [They] just try to light a light down
the tunnel and see if people will walk in that direction. And they encourage them
to do so.
While the teachers felt supported by their supervisors, when asked to describe
their interactions with supervisors, almost all the teachers indicated nominal interaction
with regard to the program. A notation in the researcher’s fieldnotes indicated an almost
69
“surprised” reaction to the question of interaction. The teachers seemed to be asking,
“Why would we interact?” Liz stated: “I don’t feel like the supervision, the
administrative perspective, and this program overlap. I feel like they are separate from
each other.” She and her coach were left alone to work with each other. She found that in
the past, she felt she was just something to get done, and her traditional observation was
just a task for the administrator to check off of a list of things to do. And while she
appreciated the trust in her to fulfill her peer coaching obligations, she still desired the
administrative “pat on the back.” Ken went on in describing his interactions with
supervisors of this program to say it was low-key and low-stress. “It wasn’t any big
formalized stressful thing. It wasn’t like that at all. It was really casual. Which I think
makes it really successful.”
Integral in describing the role that the supervisor played in the experiences of the
participants was the issue of trust. As stated before, trust was an influencing dimension of
the relationship category. However, teachers spoke of trust on the part of supervisors in
offering teachers choices with regard to their professional development. Betty found that
peer coaching offered a choice that indicated trust in her professional judgment with
regard to her own growth as a teacher. She stated:
In the past, typically somebody would pass you in the hall and say “on Thursday I
am coming to observe you.” Of course then you would be nervous until Thursday.
With this [peer coaching], it means that there is an element of trust placed in me
as a teacher, to identify a weakness or deficit and to be honest with somebody else
and say “I am struggling with this. Help me figure out how to do it better.” As
opposed to something that is superimposed on me. I feel a greater degree of
70
control. It is more authentic. To me it is a part of something more authentic,
something that I choose. It is a choice rather than a “You will do this.” And that
means a great deal to the profession. It seems more professional to me.
In summary, the teachers believed that the supervisors trusted them to direct their
own professional development.
Motivation 6: Choices
Teachers were motivated to participate because the organization of the program
allowed choices. Over half of the 15 teachers spoke of the choices they had with regard to
the peer coaching program (see Appendix B). These ranged from the basics of choosing
whether or not they wanted to participate to more complex choices such as choosing their
coach. Because they had these choices, some participants were motivated to join the peer
coaching program. Theresa noted:
[I]t is one of the few choices we actually have as teachers, especially at this
school. We don’t get, and I shouldn’t say this, we feel we don’t get, they don’t
listen to us. So it is nice to actually have a choice.
These choices gave teachers more control over their professional development.
Alice expressed how control for her was a positive aspect of participating in peer
coaching:
I feel like I have more control. I could either stay with the status quo or I could—
yeah I think it is more positive. You feel like you have a choice rather than
someone forcing a new program on you. And also, if you don’t like peer
coaching, you can go back to [state observation]. [You] had the choice as long as
you were a tenured teacher. You could have, if you wanted to remain being [with
71
the state observation] or if you wanted to do peer coaching which was our choice.
Which I think it is better that way. You can do this voluntarily rather than being
forced to do this. Because then you don’t have this attitude of here is something
new they are making [you] do.
Donna saw these experiences as being teacher driven. “We know more than
anybody what we need. We know that we are not perfect. We know that we have deficits
and we will identify things and I think we will ask for help.”
Ken found relevance in the program because the program’s organization allowed
him to make choices that made sense to him. He made a connection with both what he
does daily and with the people involved in those daily endeavors. Ken’s choice of a peer
coaching partner was someone whom he both admired and respected for his knowledge
about his own area of teaching.
I think it is hard to connect with those things when they do not relate to me on a
daily basis. Whereas this…seems a little more important to me. Or easier for me
to connect with. I see the relevance of it. Like on a daily basis. What it can really
change.
William also saw expertise as a valuable component of peer coaching, and the
program’s organization allowed him to make choices that reflected that belief.
With peer coaching…you can choose somebody who…you have that comfort
level with, maybe someone who is a teacher of social studies or math like you are,
or science, somebody who has more of that area of expertise and somebody that
you respect.
Another dimension of the program’s organization was the flexibility the
72
program allowed for participants to focus on issues of their choosing. Ken noted:
“It was a pretty, I won’t say, loose structure, but a pretty minimal structure. There
was a lot of leeway for you to make it fit for your teaching style or your
classroom.” William found the structure freed him to concentrate on what he
though was most important.
Peer coaching is much more specific; you can zero in on exactly what it is
that you would like to be assessed by. And so if there are other things
going on in there, the person observing you theoretically is kind of
filtering those, they are just looking for that particular are where you feel
you need some help, where you feel you need some feedback, or if you
chose and you want to give them carte blanche to say, “What areas do you
think I need to improve on.” There are general parameters that have been
established and we have flexibility within those parameters to do this peer
coaching.
This flexibility allowed teachers to be active rather than passive participants in
their professional development. Several teachers described the active way peer coaching
allowed them to grow professionally. Peer coaching was not something done to them, but
rather something they did. Mary noted:
This is better because it is a peer and it is giving you constructive criticism and it
actually means something to me. That [the state observation] is more of a passive
thing, I mean they watch you. You are doing your dog and pony thing and then
they are gone. I think this is much more constructive because it is actually can
help you become a better teacher. And like I said, I focused on small things. So
73
maybe if someone focused on something more grandiose it would be different.
But that is like my problem, I know my content. I feel like I am a pretty good
teacher. My biggest problem has always been discipline. So that is what I have
been focusing on. But in a way, I would like to focus on, because I teach on
different levels. I teach gifted and I teach tech. And you know you have to do a
totally different thing really between those levels.
Jennifer found that the choice of peer coaching was a way to reflect on her
teaching practice. She stated:
Peer coaching is something that you are choosing. So it is something that you are
interested in and hope to either decide or find out whether you are right in what
you thought. You know these are the results that I expect. Or that you are wrong.
It just kind of goes somewhere. Whereas the [state observation] doesn’t.
The simplicity allowed by the program’s flexibility gave teachers a minimal
structure for focus but allowed them the freedom to concentrate on relevant issues of their
choice instead of paperwork. Ken noted:
I thought it [peer coaching] was really cool. I thought, “This is really a program
where they care about the teachers.” They are not as concerned about forms and
numbers and doing status quo. They are more concerned about what is going on
in the classroom. This to me is a really good tool to evaluate what is going on in
the classroom. To help the teachers without sending them to a 20-hour workshop
that most people don’t get much out of anyway. I thought it was really exciting.
Donna also talked of the choices allowed by the program.
Peer coaching allows me to find a peer I value, admire, and believe excels
74
in his/her classroom. It also provides a way for me to see how my subject
may be taught by others, or, if I wish, how other disciplines operate. It
allows me to decide what the focus of the observation should be, rather
than a very generic overall look at my teaching.
Several teachers described the control they felt by being given the choice of peer
coaching and the opportunity to make their own decisions. Betty described her
experience in terms of the control she obtained in a process she believed was more
informed:
I never felt like they had any feel for the classroom. So this gave me a greater
degree of control. And I felt like it was a more informed process. Because you
would say, “Here is something you will see, here is how I handle those things,
here is something I would like for you to look at.” So I just felt like there was a lot
more control of the whole process. That I got to choose something.
In summary, having choices was a motivating factor to participate for many
teachers. By choosing to participate in the peer coaching program, teachers were involved
in directing their own professional development. The program’s organization, specifically
the choices allowed and the supervisor’s involvement, motivated teachers to participate in
the program both initially and on a continuing basis.
Benefits
In addition to noting the motivating reasons for their participation, teachers also
described the benefits they received from participating in the peer coaching program.
Most often the teachers described the meaningful feedback and the opportunity for
reflection as benefits of their participation.
75
Motivation 7: Received meaningful feedback
Teachers were motivated to participate in peer coaching in order to receive
meaningful feedback about their teaching practice. A majority of the participating
teachers described their experience in the peer coaching program by detailing their desire
for meaningful feedback (see Appendix B). These teachers were motivated to participate
in peer coaching because the lack of meaningful feedback from the state’s observation
model often left them filled with doubts about their teaching performance. William
described the lingering doubt that was often in the back of his mind: “[A]m I doing things
as well as I could be [doing them]? You know, when you have been teaching for 15
years, there are certain areas where you are not as good as other areas.”
William also noted that a benefit of the program for him was specific and
constructive feedback. He believed that this feedback was a valuable part of his peer
coaching experience. William stated:
So with peer coaching, because of the specific nature of it, and who it is that is
sort of assessing your work, you actually stand a chance of picking something up
that you could improve upon. So this specificity is one of the big aspects of the
peer coaching that I think is useful. You get some nitty-gritty specifics in the
particular area you want to be focused on, in terms of being assessed.
Ken also described feedback as a motivating benefit of peer coaching:
[The peer coach] would give me my things and just let me use them however I
wanted to. That is what is really valuable. I am the one that has got to make the
change. Just because he says “this”, doesn’t mean I have to do it. But until
somebody tells me, I have no idea.
76
Judy described feedback as part of her experiences with her coach. She had found
that feedback related to her particular situation was “difficult to get on her own.’ Her
experiences with her coach provided that feedback as part of an “ongoing dialogue.” By
having her coach observe classes in which she believed she was “losing people,” Judy
received specific and relevant feedback. She said:
But I know it was helpful to me when little things Suzie would pick up on,
[things] that I wasn’t exactly aware of and didn’t even think about, but that were
related to that situation. I mean I get feedback. I get feedback as opposed to those
little bubbles that are pointless.
Elizabeth found the benefit was not just in the feedback, but also in the
conversations about that feedback. She found from her experience in the program that she
and her coach “really got more out of the talking about it before and after it [the
observation], than the actual observation itself. It [peer coaching] gave a structured time
to talk where maybe we might not have.” She also described the experience as beneficial
in that she got “more from seeing what other people do than from going to some of these
[staff development] classes not that you do not get stuff from that, but you get the real
thing when you watch someone else in action.”
Mary, a teacher for 12 years, described her experiences in the program as a better
way to spend the time allotted for supervisor observations:
[There] is a lot more time involved in peer coaching than with [the state
observation]. With [the state observation], you are not doing anything. They
[supervisors] just appear and that’s it. But with peer coaching, I wanted to
actually get something accomplished. This is better because it is a peer and it is
77
giving you constructive criticism and it actually means something to me.
Mary went on to describe the benefits she derived from her peer coaching
experience:
It helped me with problems I had. And being able to talk with another teacher. I
would love to be able to get together with another teacher and talk with other
people. I think all teachers say that, professionals. But once again the time factor.
I think it is much more beneficial, you never talk to the administrators. You just
get this form back. Like the next day, they circle the little dots. You never talk to
them about it…[A]nd this way you talk to someone. And that means a lot in our
profession. Getting to talk with someone. Another professional. I guess that that is
my biggest benefit.
Teachers also described receiving honest feedback as a part of their peer coaching
experience. Liz found the feedback she received from her coach to be honest and
specific: “She was like a mirror to be able to look at things and reflect that back to me.”
This information came directly from the classroom experience, as Liz explained: “I have
a piece of information now that came from my experiences and from somebody else
watching what I was doing. And that is something that is so much more beneficial for me
in the future.”
A 12 year veteran, Theresa also described her experiences in terms of the honest
feedback she received:
We were very frank with each other about what we thought was causing the
particular behaviors that we were focusing on for each other. I mean we were very
frank. Given in a sense of “this is what you wanted me to observe and this is what
78
I looked for. I will just tell you what I see from where I sit.” And you just don’t
see yourself in front of the room, the way someone sees you.
Elizabeth also noted that she believed the feedback she received from her coach
was honest:
I feel like you get more from a peer. There is more honesty in that kind of
feedback. I just felt like it would be more useful feedback. [Peer coaching is] an
opportunity to get feedback that I wouldn’t normally get from other places. This
would be honest feedback. [Because] it would be harder to hear from a
supervisor. You know it is just the nature of human beings that you don’t want to
be criticized. But as you are working with each other, and you are both working
on something, it is a positive thing. You can get through it without feeling like
someone is grading you.
Though the feedback from peer coaching was honest, it was delivered in a
nonthreatening way. William noted:
This is an opportunity to let another teacher, as opposed to say an administrator,
another teacher who understands the same conditions that you work under, to
specifically evaluate some aspect of your teaching and give you meaningful,
positive feedback in a nonthreatening environment in a nonthreatening way.
This feedback was personal, relevant, and derived from a situation in which the
teacher had control. Betty described the feedback she got from her coach:
It comes from an angle of something that is here to help you. Not to make you
stand out, not to criticize, but to help you. I think that is a big plus in peer
79
coaching. That it is a positive kind of critiquing as opposed to someone coming in
and saying don’t do this or don’t do that.
Elizabeth also described the feedback she got from her coach:
She would see something and say, “Did you realize that you were doing this and
when you did that, this kid did that. Is that a pattern for you?” And then talk about
that. And then the two of us found that as we talked, it wasn’t one person. When
we did talk it was constructive stuff. It was coming up with ideas together, as
opposed to one person saying, “This is what you need to do,” more working
something out, and working through it.
In addition to describing this interaction as nonthreatening, teachers noted the
process of giving and receiving feedback as an active rather than passive process. Judy
described the active process in which she received specific feedback:
So I would think that the fact that it is specific, that you are targeting something
specific, it is just useful. I don’t mean to say that someone goes out seeking more
paperwork, we don’t. If they said, “You don’t have to do peer coaching, you don’t
have to be evaluated,” I would say, “Oh good!” But as long as you are going to
have to do something, I think it is a good incentive, a good structure. As much as
you feel that those things matter, it is something that is at least personal, that you
might get something out of it, that you benefit personally. And it takes away that
feeling of they are observing me, they are trying to evaluate me. It [peer coaching]
wasn’t easier. I had to do more work. Before I had just been the passive person.
And this time I had to be actively involved.
80
Documents, such as the end-of-year survey, also detailed the teachers’ desire for
feedback. Several teachers replied to an anonymous end-of-year survey by describing
benefits of the program as “having someone give feedback on the targeted behavior.” In
addition, teachers commented that they liked receiving constructive feedback from a
teacher rather than a form.
While receiving specific feedback was a key and important issue, the participating
teachers also noted that they sought this feedback from those they considered experts.
Often teachers described the benefits of participating in peer coaching as receiving
meaningful and specific feedback from someone the teacher viewed as an expert and that
expert was not always an administrator. Mary noted:
I like having the feedback from peers. From people in the classroom who deal
with similar sorts of situations. I just think it is easier for them to identify what is
going on, what is happening. I just think it is for me, a better learning
environment than for someone who has been out of the classroom for 20 years
and been an administrator. Teaching has changed a lot in 15, 20, 25 years and
when you are out of the classroom, I don’t think you have the same understanding
or you don’t seem to view things quite the same as when [you are] in a classroom
Gail also sought to participate in peer coaching because she would be working
with someone who was in a classroom:
They [peer coaches] are doing this on a daily basis. They are in the classroom.
They see it everyday. Administrators aren’t. No offense to administrators or
anything. They [peer coaches] are still doing the same thing that I am doing.
Gail went on to describe that she wanted to learn something new from someone
81
who knew what they were doing: “To be able to see someone else, to see how they were
in the classroom, to give me advice and things like that.” She believed in the expertise of
those still in the classroom. Because she viewed other classroom teachers as experts, she
found peer coaching somewhat intimidating in that “you have another fellow teacher
come in, who is still in the classroom, to look at you.”
Liz indicated that while a pat on the back from the supervisor was nice, she
craved relevant feedback from someone in her situation:
So when you get the things back from the supervisors that say you did this well
and this well that is just a pat on the back. But pats on the back are not necessarily
productive. They make you feel good for a few minutes, then you stick that thing
in the file that says exactly the same thing as all the others, and they stay there.
From the peer coaching thing, I feel that I have got something I can use now. I
have a piece of information now that came from my experiences and from
somebody else watching what I was doing and that is something that is so much
more beneficial for me in the future. It’s a thing that I can learn from instead of
just a pat on the back. That says keep it up.
Judy indicated that her coach had much to offer because of her experience:
“Mandy has been teaching long enough that she could say, ‘I don’t know about that.’
Others described recent classroom experience as relevant. Mary noted:
I think it is a good formal chance to talk to somebody about something very
specific. You are talking with somebody that knows what you are talking about
and that understands what you are trying to do. So I want someone to help me
with constructive criticism. I think it is great having a peer. I think that means a
82
lot more than having an administrator. Most of them haven’t been in a classroom
in a long time. If you haven’t been in a classroom in 10 or 15 years, think about
how much has changed.
Teachers participating in this program described the relevant feedback they
craved and obtained from those they considered expert, fellow teachers. Though benefits
of participating in the peer coaching program were most often described in terms of
feedback, teachers also included such things as acquiring a new skill or technique, or
intangibles such as a renewed sense of professionalism, a stronger bond of trust, or an
appreciation for the skills of another teachers. Often a different perspective simply gave
the teachers hope. Liz stated:
Because there were days, this happens all the time, where the teacher’s
perspective of what was happening in the classroom was not really what someone
else would see. There were days when I was having a bad day and it would seem
that everything in the world was ten times louder than it really was. So there were
times when she could see that I was being stressed over what was going on and
she would say, “You know it really wasn’t bad today.”
In summary, teachers described feedback as a benefit of participating in the
program. As discussed in Motivation 1, teachers were not receiving meaningful feedback
from the supervisor observations. As a result of their participation in the peer coaching
program, they not only received feedback, they received this feedback from someone
they believed qualified to give it.
83
Motivation 8: Reflection
Teachers found the process of reflection was also a benefit of participating in the
peer coaching program. Ten of the 15 teachers found that the active process of not only
getting but also giving feedback was often a source of reflection for themselves (see
Appendix B). In many instances, participants found that just the experience of observing
another teacher provided an opportunity for learning. The opportunity afforded by peer
coaching to reflect not only on their own teaching experiences but also on the teaching
experience of others provided occasion for the participants to think critically about their
own practice. Theresa noted:
You just don’t see yourself in front of the room, the way someone sees you sitting
from somewhere else. So we were able to be honest with each other about the
behaviors we observed that had nothing to do with evaluating each other.
Betty also found that the process of observing another teacher gave her the
opportunity to reflect on her own practice. The opportunity afforded by the peer coaching
program provided the vehicle for those observations. Betty stated:
The things I learned from watching her. That I wasn’t really [expecting]. You
know the purpose of peer coaching is not really the benefit of it. The benefit of it
is usually more indirect. You are going there to give feedback to another teacher
about their teaching, but the benefit for me was more about what I learned in a
forced observation of another professional. I think that was valuable because it
made me do some self-reflection.
Betty also found that the different perspective her own peer coach brought to her
classroom provided reflection.
84
And I think it is always good to have someone else’s ideas on things, especially
when you see problems and they are right in front of your face, it takes someone
else to look at them from a different angle and it is helpful. I think it was very
helpful. I think it was positive.
Reflection was generated in several different ways. Sometimes their coach simply
relayed back exactly what had happened in the classroom. Liz stated:
And she was kind of like a mirror to be able to look at things and reflect that back
at me. She helped me see that that was the best particular approach for that one
task. And I think that as I ask people to help me look at different things,…I will
learn a lot more than an administrator coming in and filling out a checklist.
Judy found just the opportunity of peer coaching prompted her to reflect on her
practice: “It has been useful, it has been, it has been nice to stop and make myself think
about the way I do something.”
Reflection also occurred while the teacher observed their coach and compared the
coach’s practices to their own. William stated:
Because I am seeing another teacher in action and all those little nuances that may
have nothing to do with the material being taught, you know things like classroom
management, all the little nuances coming together for me, that benefits me.
Other teachers noted similar reflective reactions. Theresa explained: “I am as
enlightened as anyone when I walk in someone else’s classroom observing something
intentionally for 45 minutes as much as being on the other end.” Ken also explained his
reaction to the observation process:
85
I had to think about my teaching before I started this. I had to analyze my own
style of teaching to come up with some strategies of things I wanted to fix. So I
had to become real introspective even before I started. Which I thought was really
good. I think change can happen, but only when you start analyzing yourself.
Jennifer found that participation in the peer coaching program helped her to
discover areas of her teaching practice that she wanted to work on:
But I also think it makes you more aware of what you are doing and how you are
doing it because you know you are going to pick something specific to work on.
And I think it sort of helps you to examine overall what you are doing and how
you are doing it.
Donna also found the feedback she received from her peer coach led her to be
more reflective in her practice:
It requires a little bit more of your time. But it is sort of a reflective experience.
We read all the time that we are supposed to do more reflection. And it [peer
coaching] has built in reflective practices. Because when you write up your
experiences with the other person, you have to reflect on what they did and when
they talk to you about what happened.
Melaney also described how her experiences in the peer coaching program led to self-
reflection:
I am always trying to figure out how some people can [teach] more effectively
than others. So that is the most valuable thing of peer coaching, even if I wrote
nothing up, had no target behavior, and I just went into different classes and just
looked for how they engaged students. Sometimes the benefit is not what you
86
went for. They will be doing that thing that I think I can’t do. Gosh, that is
working and that is why I am a better teacher than I was last month. I am always
looking for ways to get better, and there are a lot of teachers looking to stay the
same. I am always looking for ways to get better and others are looking for ways
to justify the way they are. So peer coaching can make them get outside of that
box.
In summary, reflection was a motivating benefit of participating in the peer
coaching program. Teachers found that not only did the feedback they received cause
them to reflect on their own practice, but also the acts of observing, conferencing, and
planning with their coach caused them to reflect as well.
Supervisors
Each of the three supervisors involved with the peer coaching program described
their role as one of empowering teachers. As they discussed their experiences with
teachers in the program, they often described their own attitudes and behaviors in
empowering teachers to direct their own professional development (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Themes of Supervisors’ Experiences
Empowering Factors
Provided choice and input
Trusted teachers to direct professional development
87
Empowerment 1: Allowing input and choices
Supervisors believed they empowered teachers by providing them input and
choices with regard to their professional development (see Appendix C). First came the
opportunity for input into what kinds of programs should be offered. Peer coaching at
Jones High School was suggested and developed by teachers. Sandy believed that
providing this opportunity was crucial in empowering teachers:
Because we always give lip service, in any county meeting from people, I don’t
care how high up, from the superintendent to levels underneath the
superintendent, [we] always talk about it is the teacher who really knows what is
going on. It is the teacher who is the bottom line. It is the teacher who has contact
with the kids. But how much does the teacher have input with what goes on [in
staff development]. I think that is a good solid way to say to the teacher “you two
have input with each other.” It is kind of putting your money where your mouth
is.
As a supervisor, Alex also believed peer coaching provided an opportunity for
professional growth in a more relevant way:
[We] are putting the focus where the focus needs to be and that’s what takes place
in the classroom. And what takes place in the classroom is the interaction among
a group of students and a teacher. Or between a student and a teacher. And in
order to facilitate that engagement, and make that engagement something special,
you’ve got to provide people with a vehicle and an opportunity to improve.
In addition to offering the opportunity for input into programs of professional
growth, supervisors believed that the choice of participating in the program was also
88
empowering, even if it meant going out on a limb. Sandy noted:
They choose their peers. We have not assigned someone. A concern that I have is
who are some of the matchups. I have a hard time believing, being the person I
am, that those people are really anything other than going through the motions
they have to. “This is my friend; I am going to do it with them.” Nobody is going
to say anything bad about the other one. And what he is doing. And I am sure that
there is some of that. So that would be a drawback. But I still think that there are
benefits. And even those people, if they would just give professionalism a
toehold, they will get things from each other.
Empowerment 2: Trust
Supervisors believed that they were empowering teachers by trusting them to
direct their own professional development (see Appendix C). Though they fully
supported the program, supervisors did not believe their role was one of active
involvement. Marie described her role as one of stepping back:
My role, as I see it, is to be a facilitator and to give them the opportunities they
need to get the thing going. Provide the sub time, whatever they need. I am there
to facilitate, but then I step back and they really do this themselves.
Supervisors also described empowering teachers by helping them understand that they,
the teachers, held the power of professional development. Sandy stated:
I think that the teachers need to know that it is teacher-to-teacher. That the
administrator do not read every report and look over everybody’s shoulder. Cause
I think if we do that, if they think we are doing that, then it becomes restrictive.
Everybody can be honest with each other if they think it is just between those two
89
people and they are friends or they are professionals. You can say “I think you
really screwed up doing that” and know that it is not going anywhere but to that
person’s ears. It is a lot more meaningful if it is truly teacher-to-teacher.
In summary, supervisors described their role in peer coaching as one of
empowerment. They believed they empowered teachers by providing choices, not only
the choice to participate in peer coaching, but also choices throughout the program.
Supervisors also described their experiences in terms of the trust they had in teachers to
direct their own professional development.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to describe perspectives toward supervision of
teachers and supervisors in a peer coaching program. Motivating factors led teachers to
chose to participate and continue in the peer coaching program instead of a traditional
supervisor-led observation cycle. While this was more work for the teachers, their
involvement in a peer coaching relationship lead to benefits that in turn motivated even
further personal participation. At the same time, participation in this program led to
decreased interaction with supervisors.
Teachers in this study generally described their experiences in terms of their
motivation to participate and the benefits they received. They were motivated to
participate because of dissatisfaction with the current supervisory system, a desire to
improve their practice, relationships with their coaches, and the choices allowed by the
program’s organization.
90
In addition to describing the motivating factors, teachers also noted the benefits
they received from their participation in the program. Meaningful feedback from an
expert as well as opportunities for reflection were also described as benefits.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS
This study was conducted at a suburban high school with participants in a peer
coaching program and their supervisors. The purpose of this study was to explore the
perspectives toward supervision of supervisors and teachers working within a school
where traditional supervisory coaching activities (observation and feedback) were led by
teachers. The guiding research question for this study was: How do supervisors and
teachers experience participation in a peer coaching program? This chapter will provide a
summary of the study, followed by discussion and implications for application and
further research.
Summary of the Study
In order to study the perspectives of the participants, a grounded theory protocol
was used for this study. In-depth interviews were conducted with both teachers and
supervisors using guiding questions. Teachers were asked to describe their experiences
with their peer coach and to describe their experiences with their supervisor during this
program. Supervisors were asked to describe their experiences with the teachers in this
program and to describe their experiences with their fellow supervisors during this
program. From the teachers’ perspectives, experiences in this program were defined by
their motivations to participate and the benefits they received. Supervisors described their
experiences in terms of empowering teachers.
91
92
Research Design
Interviews were conducted with the participants over a 3 month period at a site of
each participant’s choosing, including the research site (most often used), homes of
participants, and nearby restaurants. The researcher also had access to school artifacts
pertaining to the peer coaching program, including training materials, participant’s
anonymous responses to surveys, and forms collected by the supervising administrator
who documented teachers’ participation.
Symbolic interactionism was the guiding theoretical framework used to conduct
this study. According to the framework of symbolic interactionism, the meanings and
actions of teachers and supervisors involved in a peer coaching program result from the
interactions with each other as well as interpretations of the roles, norms, and goals that
help set the conditions and consequences for their actions (Blumer, 1969).
Using this framework, data was collected and analyzed using a grounded theory
protocol employing the method of constant comparative analysis. As categories emerged,
meanings and actions of teachers and supervisors were revealed. These meanings and
actions led to theoretical discussions. Findings in chapter 4 included eight themes of
motivation for teachers and two themes of empowerment for supervisors. Glaser and
Strauss (1967) suggest that the generation of these general categories and their properties
for general and specific situations and problems “provide theoretical guides to the
layman’s actions” (p. 30). These themes provided the foundation for the following
discussions and implications.
93
Discussion
The purpose of this section is to discuss some of the findings described in chapter
4 within the context of the existing literature. Each of the following sections will include
a theme, supported by data and discussion, followed by appropriate comments from the
current literature.
Teacher Dissatisfaction
Dissatisfaction with the current supervisory system motivated teachers to
participate in a program that provided them with meaningful feedback. Throughout this
study, teachers referred to their dissatisfaction with the current supervisory system as
well as a desire to improve their teaching. Teachers described observations that were
short and unplanned. They described their participation in these observations as
performances in an artificial setting. In addition, the feedback they got from these
observations was almost nonexistent. William described his experience with the current
supervision-observation system as ambiguous. He never knew quite what they were
looking for and only hoped to hit the “right marks.” Ken was also dissatisfied with the
process and the feedback. Since the feedback came in the form of a “bubble,” (marks
made on the feedback sheet indicating preset behaviors seen or not seen) he wasn’t
convinced the evidence showed what actually happened.
Research has shown that motivation is generated by dissatisfaction. Knowles
(1980) defined motivation as “self-induced dissatisfaction with present inadequacies,
coupled with a clear sense of direction for self-improvement” (p. 42). This study
confirmed what research on supervision has already shown, that teachers are dissatisfied
with supervision as it is traditionally practiced, in a bureaucratic, top-down manner. The
94
results of this study demonstrate that teachers want a personal two-way relationship that
will provide them feedback from someone whom they believe is genuinely interested in
and knowledgeable about what they are doing. Though the peer coaching program was
more work for the teaching participants, as opposed to the traditional observation, each
participant was motivated by these various factors to participate in a program that they
believed provided meaningful feedback.
Teacher Concerns
When involved in professional activities of their choice, teachers’ concerns
progressed from issues of comfortableness to issues of professional growth and
challenge. Teachers who initially chose a coach with whom they were comfortable often
would later express a desire for a coach who would challenge them professionally,
valuing this challenge more than comfort. When teachers progressed to this level, they
were not concerned with comfortableness, but rather they desired the lack of comfort in
order to stretch their professional knowledge.
Those who had progressed to the level of professional stretching often chose
coaches with whom they had had no previous relationship. They chose coaches who
could provide a certain skill or knowledge that that teacher desired to possess. One
teacher noted: “We were very frank with each other about what we thought was causing
the particular behaviors that we were focusing on for each other. And then each of us was
thinking of things for the other person to try.” Another teacher said: “I make the
assumption that when you have two professionals, you are not going to play at it, deceive
each other, or say ‘hey you did wonderful.’ I think you are going to be able to provide
useful feedback.”
95
The previous discussion is indicative of what is believed about adult learners.
Knowles (1980) suggested that the “problem-orientation of the learner implied that the
most appropriate starting point for every learning experience [was] the problems and
concerns that the adults have on their minds as they enter a learning situation.” Some
participants of peer coaching entered the program fearful of what they might see or hear
about themselves and therefore sought comfortable, nonthreatening relationships.
Conversely, other participants sought relationships that would challenge them because
they had moved from a different, not necessarily better, starting point. They had a need,
whether from experience or situation, to seek a relationship where comfortableness was
not an issue. Regardless of their reasons for participating in the program, both groups of
teachers had seized control of their professional development in choosing peer coaching
and making decisions based on that choice.
Findings of this study also suggested that the teaching participants of this peer
coaching program found that the choice of whether or not to participate as well as the
ability to choose with whom and for what purpose to participate were motivating factors.
Based on his assumptions about adult learning, Knowles (1980) outlined several
implications for the adult learner that includes an “emphasis on the involvement of
learners in the process of self-diagnosis of needs for learning” (p. 43). Having choices
was a form of input the teachers had with regard to their professional learning needs.
Providing choices that reflect the teacher’s needs is indicative of Glatthorn’s
(1997) definition of differentiated supervision. Differentiated supervision is based on the
belief that teaching is a profession in which the members of that profession should have
control over their own professional development. That continuous improvement is seen
96
as a journey, not a destination. “Teaching is seen as a continuing search for meaning, one
that poses and finds tentative answers to the fundamental questions that confront all
educators” (Glatthorn, 1997, p. 10).
Studies on peer coaching have traditionally centered on the peer coaching cycle.
Joyce and Showers (1995) and others have examined coaching based on what teachers
learned from the experience rather than why they chose the experience and with whom
they chose to participate. This study has extended that body of knowledge by providing
reasons and the motivating factors that caused teachers to participate in peer coaching
and with whom they chose to participate.
Teacher Empowerment
Supervisors empowered teachers by providing opportunities for input and choices
regarding their own professional development. The supervisors of this program involved
teachers in the process of generating ideas. Teachers were the initiators of peer coaching
at Jones High School. Supervisors followed through with the implementation of peer
coaching as an alternative supervisory activity.
Participation in this professional-development program was voluntary. In
addition, little paperwork was demanded from the teachers to document their growth.
Examination of the program artifacts found that teachers were only required to record
their activities briefly. The teachers’ descriptions of their activities simply provided the
documentation for the state of their participation. Though the documentation was
reviewed with the supervisor of the program, the administrative team did not review it.
Teachers were trusted to participate in the program in a way that was meaningful to them,
not to conform to a predetermined configuration.
97
The supervisors at Jones High School indicated that supervision was not about
controlling the teachers’ professional development, but rather it was about empowering
those teachers to assume control of their own professional development. Each supervisor
described his or her role as one of facilitation; they were there to provide the opportunity.
The literature confirms the role of the supervisor to be one of underlying support rather
than one of judgment. As stated before, Nolan & Huber (1989), echoing Schon’s work on
reflection, believed that “changing teacher behavior [is] not the most important goal of
the supervisor who sees teaching as reflective practice” (p. 128). Rather, the critical task
of the supervisor is to help engage the teacher more successfully in reflective behavior
while promoting critical inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning. Peer
coaching is such an activity. Airasian and Gullickson (1997) cited external peer
observations among the strategies that would enhance teacher reflection. These
observations should be carefully described as descriptive, not evaluative.
Blase and Blase (1999) described, as an element of an effective principal,
promotion of professional growth. Effective principals encouraged and supported
redesign of programs and applied the principles of adult learning, growth, and
development. The results of this study on peer coaching were congruent with these
findings of Blase and Blase. Teaching participants of the program cited the actions of
supervisors in providing support to the collaborative actions of teachers involved in the
peer coaching program. Yet the interaction with supervisors was described, both by
teachers and supervisors, as minimal.
Letting go of traditional supervision practices and providing teachers with choices
could be described as innovative. Knowles (1980) described innovative organizations as
98
those organizations that were flexible, people centered, informal, and trusting. Knowles
stated: “The role of management was to release the energy of personnel and power was
used supportively” (p. 62). The innovation of providing alternative supervisory activities
such as peer coaching releases that energy.
The role of supervisors in this study was the facilitation of such activities.
Brookfield (1986) described this facilitation of alternative supervisory activities that
could be described as self-directed learning. Documentation from program artifacts
demonstrated the actions of supervisors in facilitating roles. As facilitators, supervisors
served as one of many possible content resources. They located resources and presented
new information pertaining to derived learner needs. They arranged for, managed, and
employed a variety of resources necessary to accomplish learning goals.
Supervisors also acted as facilitators by helping learners to develop positive
attitudes and feelings of independence relative to learning and this program. They
promoted discussion, questioning, and self-directed inquiry skills (Brookfield, 1986).
Knowles (1980) posits that adults should be involved in the process of planning
their own learning with the leader serving as a procedural guide and content resource.
The supervisor’s role, according to Knowles’s definition of adult learner, should be more
of a catalyst than an instructor. As Knowles described, the supervisor was not the one
teaching in the sense of making the teacher learn. Rather he or she was helping the other
to learn by getting out of the learner’s way.
The results of this study illuminate the role of the supervisor. Delaney and
Arredondo (1998) found that the peer coaching program was dependent on the principal’s
actions and collapsed when the principal left the school. Results of studies by Little and
99
Bird (1983), Ruck (1986), Askins (1994), and Kovic (1996), described the role of the
supervisor as minimal, regulated to providing substitute coverage. The results of this
study suggest that supervisors have a much more powerful role, that of empowerment. By
providing a structure such as a peer coaching program, supervisors of this study, relieved
the fears of participants in directing their own professional development. By providing
first the choice to participate, then the choice of whom to participate with, and allowing
this to replace the traditional supervisor observation, supervisors of this peer coaching
program empowered the participating teachers to direct their own professional
development. This study provides a template for this empowerment.
Implications
In the past, the term supervision has implied direct assistance, while the more
current view of supervision details a “range of curriculum and instructional leadership
activities as interdependent and interactive, and calls for integrating these activities as
functions of educational supervision” (Gordon, 1992, p. 65). Gordon also supported the
view that “there is a growing recognition that there is not, and never will be, a single
approach to instruction or supervision that can be applied effectively to all teachers,
students, or learning content” (p. 66). This study has provided research on one activity,
peer coaching, which could be considered a component of this new of supervision. The
findings of this study, along with the preceding discussions, have implications for future
research, higher education, and K-12 staff developers.
Implications for Further Research
While Joyce and Showers (1996) found that feedback between teachers was seen
as evaluation, the results of this study found that teachers in a coaching situation actually
100
desired feedback. Teaching participants in this study referred to the desire for meaningful
feedback as a motivating factor for participation in the program. The findings of this
study echo the ideas of others (Costa & Garmston, 1994) that teachers desire feedback.
For teachers in this study, the desire for feedback ranged from simply “just tell me
what you saw” to “be brutal and tell me how to do it better.” Therefore, further research
should be done on what motivates a teacher’s desire for feedback to move along this
continuum. At what point do teachers move from feedback that just relays what was seen
to feedback that suggests the ideas and thoughts of others? While Joyce and Showers
(1995) contend that the feedback component can be eliminated from a coaching cycle
that is geared toward training in a specific technique, research should be done to
determine the effects, if any, if feedback is eliminated from a coaching program where
teachers make choices about the focus of their experience.
An additional topic of research could be the changing role of the supervisor. What
happens to supervisors when they employ the tools of differentiated supervision and
become facilitators rather than directors? What are the actions of these supervisors who
empower? What facilitates the change to become an empowering supervisor? What are
the obstacles? What are the challenges?
Finally, while the supervisors and teachers of this program were satisfied with the
training and follow-up provided in this program, future research could be conducted to
see if additional training and follow-up would enhance or detract from the experience of
peer coaching as defined by this study.
101
Implications for Higher Education
If supervision is to make a meaningful change, practicing and aspiring supervisors
need to be given opportunities to explore their own views and practices of supervision.
Higher education could work with staff development to provide supervisors with
opportunities to interact in a facilitating manner with practicing teachers. In providing
these opportunities, the supervisors could be taught how to facilitate the empowerment of
teachers without overwhelming teachers. To that end, supervisors need training in
working collaboratively with practicing teachers, not, as traditionally practiced, with
other supervisors. In this manner, higher education can provide the impetus for changing
supervision to reflect the needs of many (individual teachers) rather than the needs of one
(the organization). By providing this education and training on differentiation, higher
education can provide the means by which supervision can transform from a dictatorial
practice that treats teachers as identical components of the learning environment to an
empowering practice that treats teachers as individuals. The tools needed to engage in
such practice do not come easy to organizations that are not used to providing
individualized programs for teachers. As Knowles (1980) stated, innovative organizations
are those that are flexible.
In the same manner, higher education could offer differentiated programs for
supervisors, reflecting the needs and interests of those supervisors. For example,
programs could be offered at the university level that provided practicing supervisors
with a similar experience to peer coaching that include: information, training, and
meaningful feedback.
102
Implications for K-12 Staff Developers
Based on Knowles’s (1980) emphasis of the role of experience and experiences in
adult learning, he suggested that there is a universal need of adults to take responsibility
for their own learning through self-directed inquiry. In addition, adults need to learn how
to learn collaboratively with the help of colleagues rather than to compete with them, and
they need to learn how to learn by analyzing their own experiences. Peer coaching
connects with all of these points. This carries significant implications for those who plan
learning situations for adults.
First, teachers will need training in how to provide meaningful feedback to their
colleagues without coming across as evaluating them. As teachers continue in programs
such as peer coaching, it would behoove them to not trade one inadequate evaluation
situation for what could be considered an even worse one, evaluating one’s peers.
Additionally, staff developers could note that simplicity is a powerful tool. The
teachers in this program were not required to go through vigorous training sessions or
followed up with piles of paperwork. They were given the basics and allowed to develop
their own program. The teachers and supervisors in this program were satisfied that the
training and followup involved were adequate to provide teachers with a meaningful
experience.
In addition to teacher training, supervisors will also need to be trained. In the
future, the structured options of supervision will reflect teachers’ individual needs and
goals as well as be based on standards and expectations (Blase & Blase, 1998).
Supervisory leadership in the 21st century will consist of enhanced collaborative
relationships, supervisors and teachers sharing decision making, supervisors practicing
103
reflective listening, and, contrary to the inherent meaning of the word supervision,
teacher self-direction (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000b). Staff development could be provided
for supervisors in the practice of differentiated activities. These supervisors will need to
know what their role is and how to support teachers in this type of activity.
REFERENCES
Airasian, P. W., & Gullickson, A. (1997). Teacher self-evaluation tool kit.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Anderson, R. (1989). Unanswered questions about the effect of supervision on teacher
behavior: A research agenda. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(4), 291-
297.
Anderson, R., & Snyder, K. (1998). Functions of school supervision. In G. Firth & E.
Peak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 763-778). New
York: Macmillan.
Askins, B. (1994, February). Collegial support teams replace teacher evaluations in a
partnership school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the association of
teacher educators, Atlanta, GA.
Becker, H., & Geer, B. (1960). The analysis of qualitative research field data. In R.
Adams & J. Preiss (Eds.), Human organization research (pp. 28-35).
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Bentzen, M. (1974). Changing schools: The magic feather principle. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, J. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational
change: Vol. 4. The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
104
105
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From
control to empowerment. New York: Cassell Wellington House.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teacher perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 349-678.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war (2nd ed.).
Berkely, CA: McCrutchan Publishing.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1986). The effective principal: Perspectives on school
leadership (2nd ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
theory and methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A
guidebook and resource. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brandt, R. (1987). On teachers coaching teachers: A conversation with Bruce Joyce.
Educational Leadership, 44(3), 12-17.
106
Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: Approaching renaissance
schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning.
Educational Leadership, 55(5), 39-42.
Delaney, J., & Arredondo, D. (1998). Using collegial coaching and reflection as
mechanisms for changing school culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the University Council for Educational Administration, St. Louis, MO.
Devaney, K., & Thorn, L. (1975). Exploring teacher centers. San Francisco: Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999). The impact of peer and principal collaborative
supervision on teachers’ trust, commitment, desire for collaboration and efficacy.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351-379.
Garmston, R. (1983). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership, 50(2),
57-61.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the methodology of grounded theory: Theoretical
sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glatthorn, A. (1992). Teachers as agents of change. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
107
Glatthorn, A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glickman, C. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998). Supervision of instruction: A
developemental approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Goldsberry, L. (1985). Principals’ thoughts on supervision. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gordon, S. (1992). Paradigms, transitions, and the new supervision. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 8(1), 62-77.
Grimmett, P. (1987). The role of district supervisors in the implementation of peer
coaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(1), 3-28.
Hallam, L., & McKeen, R. (1991). Peer coaching as an organization development
intervention in the public schools. Education, 111(4), 553-559.
Harchar, R. (1993). Collaborative Power: A grounded theory of administrative
instructional leadership in the elementary school. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Herzberg, R. (1987, September/October). One more time: How do you motivate
employees? Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 109-121.
Huberman, A. (1973). Understanding change in education: An introduction. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations.
108
Janesick, V. (1994). The dance of qualitative design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and
meaning. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. London: Cassel & Collier Macmillan.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:
Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman USA.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational
Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.
Kovic, S. (1996). Peer coaching to facilitate inclusion: A job-embedded staff
development model. Journal of Staff Development, 17(1), 28-31.
Knowles, M. (1980). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston:
Gulf.
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of
school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Little, J.W., & Bird, T. (1983). Finding and founding peer coaching: An interim report of
the application of research on faculty relations to the implementation of two
school improvement experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
109
Little, J.W., & Bird, T. (1984). Report on a pilot study of school-level collegial
teaming. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development.
McClelland, D. (1998). Human Motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McFaul, S., & Cooper, J. (1984). Peer Clinical Supervision: Theory vs. Reality.
Educational Leadership, 41(7), 5-11.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Neubert, G., & Bratton, E. (1987). Team coaching: Staff development side by side.
Educational Leadership, 44(5), 29-32.
Nolan, J., & Hillkirk, K. (1991). The effects of a reflective coaching project for veteran
teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(1), 62-76.
Nolan, J., & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflective practitioner through instructional
supervision: A review of the literature. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
4(2), 126-145.
Oliva, R., & Pawless, G. (1997). Supervision for today’s schools (5th ed.). New York:
Longman Publishers.
Pajak, E. (1993). Approaches to supervision: Alternatives for improving instruction.
Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishing.
Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative Evaluative Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
110
Reitzug, U. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 283-307.
Reitzug, U. (1997). Images of principal instructional leadership: From super-vision
to collaborative inquiry. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 356-366.
Ruck, C. (1986). Creating a school context for collegial supervision: The principal’s
role as contractor. OSSC Bulletin, 30(3), 1-32.
Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sergiovanni, T. (1989). Science and scientism in supervision and teaching. Journal of
Curriculum and Instruction, 4(2), 93-105.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 41-45.
Sharon, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1982). Effects of an instructional change program on
teachers’ behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 18(2), 185-201.
Showers, B. (1983). The Transfer of Training: The contribution of coaching
[Report to the U.S. Department of Education]. Eugene: University of Oregon,
Center for Educational Policy and Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED231035)
Smyth, J. (1997). Is supervision more than the surveillance of instruction? In J. Glanz &
R.R. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and
controversies (pp. 286-295). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
111
Sparks, G. M. (1986). The effectiveness of alternative training activities in
changing teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal. 23(2), 217-
225.
Starratt, R. (1997). Should supervision be abolished? YES. In J. Glanz & R.R. Neville
(Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies (pp. 4-
12). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000a). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the
field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(3), 212-237.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000b). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: Theory and method. In M. D. LeCompte,
W. L. Milroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 336-404). New York: Academic Press.
Zepeda, S., & Ponticell, J. (1998). At cross-purposes: What do teachers need, want, and
get from supervision? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 68-87.
APPENDICES
112
113
APPENDIX A
CODING CHART
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15CodeACTV x x x xASSE xBENE x x x x x x x x x x xANTBEN x x xCHAN x x xCHOI x x x xCOMF x x x x x xCOND x xCONTR x x xEMPOW x xEXPER xEXPERT x x x x x x xEVAL xFDBK x x x x x x x x x x xFOCUS x x xFRUS x xHONST x x x xINDEP xISOLMEAN xMOTIV x x x x x x x x x xNONEV xNONJUD x x x xNONTH x x xGTEP x x x x x x xOPEN xOPP x x xPASSPERF xPRAC x xPROC x xPURP x xREFLC x x x x xRELAT x x x x x x x x x x x x xRELAN xRSPT x x x xRISK x x xSELFEV x xSHARSPEC xSPON xSTRESS x xSTUD xSTRULO x xSTRUC x x x x x x x x xSUPR x x xSUPBEH x x x x x x x x xSUPFDBK xSUPMOTTRDRV xTIME x x x x x xTRUS x x xWANT x x x
114
APPENDIX B
THEMES AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Theresa X X X X X X
Mary X X X X X Liz X X X X X
Alice X X X X X Jennifer X X X X X William X X X X X X X X
Ken X X X X X X X Angie X X Gail X X Judy X X X X X Betty X X X X
Sandra X X X Elizabeth X X X
Donna X X X X Melaney X X
Motivations
1. Dissatisfaction with the current supervisory system motivated teachers to participate in the peer coaching program. 2. Teachers were influenced to participate in the peer coaching program because of personal dissatisfaction with their teaching and a desire to improve their practice. 3. Teachers were motivated to participate because of relationships they had or planned to have with other teachers. 4. Teachers were motivated to participate with coaches they respected and trusted to be honest and non-threatening. 5. Teachers participating in peer coaching noted the supervisors’ role was offering trust, support, and the freedom to direct their own professional development. 6.Teachers were motivated to participate because the organization of the program allowed choices.
Benefits 7.Teachers were motivated to participate in peer coaching in order to receive meaningful feedback about their teaching practice. 8.Teachers found the process of reflection was also a benefit of participating in the peer coaching program.
115
APPENDIX C
THEMES AS REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS
1 2
Alex X X
Marie X X
Sandy X
Empowerment
1. The supervisors of this program empowered teachers by providing choices in professional development.
2. The supervisors of this program described their role as one of trusting teachers to
direct their own professional development.
116
APPENDIX D
SURVEY RESULTS FROM 2000-2001
The following results of a survey, given by the supervising administrator of the program, were tabulated after the first 18 interviews were conducted and initially analyzed. 1. How many years have you taught? 15, 14, 16, 17, 10, 15, 5, 12, 13, 17, 9, 7, 13, 7, 14, 8, 13, 8, 13.5, 11, 18 2. How many years have you been at Jones? 8, 6, 1, 7, 1, 7, 3, 10, 13, 5, 2, 2, 10, 7, 3, 8, 6, 4, 13.5, 4, 7 3. Did you participate in peer coaching last year, 1999-2000? No (12), Yes (9) 4. Do you plan to participate next year? Yes (18), Maybe (1), No (2) If not, why not?
Leaving the school. Haven’t decided if I will.
5. Why did you choose to participate this year? Good follow-up to last year’s experience. Thought it would be useful. Like the feedback from teacher over a form. A colleague talked me into it. I felt getting feedback from a peer would be valuable. Interesting. I heard good things about peer coaching from colleagues who participated last year. I thought it would give more usable feedback compared with that of the [STATE
OBSERVATION] process. So I could focus on a particular lesson/activity in which to be observed. I heard good things about the program. Something different—work with a colleague. To get feedback from another teacher and to make time to observe somebody else. More beneficial than [STATE OBSERVATION].
117
To work with another teacher who teaches the same population but at another school. To get input on teaching styles from someone else’s viewpoint. Liked it last year. Getting ideas from my peers. I like the idea of focusing on one area of improvement. I did it last year and thought it was a good experience. Useful to see how others teach within _____faculty. To try something different. 6. What has been the most beneficial for you in the peer coaching program? Having someone give feedback on the targeted behavior. Seeing that others have similar situations. I like the feedback from teacher over a form. Opportunity to actually talk with a colleague about nuts and bolts of teaching. Talking with other teachers about teaching. The dialogue before and after actual observation. The idea sharing with a colleague for whom I have respect. The one-on-one post-observation conference gave the chance for dialogue with a peer. Getting constructive feedback from my colleague. Allows me to see other teachers’ ideas. Zeroing in on one teaching behavior—to try new strategies. Brainstorming ways to solve problems. Observing other classes. Gaining another insight/perpective in working with EBD students. Flexibility and feedback. Being able to pick what behavior will be observed. Getting ideas from my peers. The exchange of ideas between colleagues. Feedback from someone who is actually in the classroom. Discussions of student’s attitudes and behaviors in class. Talking with someone in another discipline. 7. Regarding your own professional growth, in what area(s) would you like to improve? Time management (2). To use more maps in lessons, more efficiently. Organization of materials. Behavior management of tech/high school. I would like to improve in the recycling of material already taught. Parent-to-teacher dialogue. Become more consistent with my discipline observations/consequences. Increasing my knowledge of young adult literature. Increasing reluctant participants. Controlling noise level in classroom. Continuing to build professional relationships within my field and staying current on
118
trends and issues in education. Becoming a more effective team teacher. Instruction. Class discipline. Organization, teaching with multimedia. I would like to improve on being more consistent with classroom rules and being
prepared with varied instructional activities. Motivation of students who really don’t want to be here. 8. Would you be willing to do two cycles next year, instead of one, if an entire sub day was provided for you? (This would be optional, not required.) Yes (9) Additional comments: I feel 2 would be great! It will work best keeping same peer
coach, same behavior, and same subject area. No (4) Additional comments: One cycle was enough. Not sure (4) Additional comments: I am not sure. It is difficult to complete one peer coaching cycle
time-wise. Maybe (4) 9. What kinds of conversations did you and your partner have about your teaching outside of formal peer coaching sessions? How to do “things” better. Talked about various methodologies and how effective certain ones are with certain
students and with entire classes in certain circumstances. We always talk about our classes and students’ reactions to activities. We share a room so we talked about everything (curriculum, students, management,
etc.). We conversed daily on issues and suggestions would be given. Deciding topics, evaluating results (findings). Not many, if at all. We share ideas that have and have not worked. Many times we have gripe sessions but sometimes it is more profitable. Informal discussions about student behavior and reading interests. We tend to discuss organizational techniques and we share creative activities. Not much. Several—ideas we got from each other unrelated to plan. Since we teach the same subject, we talked about different ideas and viewpoints on
getting information to students.
119
Our conversations became more frequent, more informal and encompassed teaching, students, climate, etc.
How different students seem to learn. We often chat because we have the same planning time. We talk about all kinds of
things educational and otherwise. We are in the same department so we had continuous conversations about students in
the classes we observed. We always talked about how our classes were doing—what was working, what wasn’t.
Also, we talked about what to do with specific students. 10. What professional growth opportunities can you suggest you’d like to attempt/have access to that we don’t have at this point in time? Just allow teachers time to teach and reflect on their efforts—no “world class” and
“cutting edge” reform nonsense. No “fads.” No top-down brilliant ideas to manipulate teaching behaviors. Just emphasize good teaching habits.
There are taped series on teaching students with disabilities (ADHD, etc.) that I believe would be good for the reg. ed. teachers to view. Many problems could be “nipped in the bud” with more understanding.
Shadow a counselor, administrator, or a person in a business/industry related to our discipline taught.
More “hands-on” activities that can be done in the classroom that could apply to all subjects.
I’d like to have time with other teachers to develop materials specific to what we teach (units we teach and labs we teach). More new materials to be shared by all in the departments.
More in-depth training on different software programs. Such as Adobe PhotoShop and PowerPoint.
This is a good start. I benefit from one-on-one or small group sharing of simple activities that have been successful for other teachers. I also enjoy hearing and seeing how others stay organized.
Managing tech classes. Seminars with college professors in my field (Language Arts). Here to discuss the
teaching of writing or spend two hours in depth on a particular author, work of literature, etc.
More collaboration with middle school teachers to better transition 8th graders to high school.
Self-determined topics for growth with some outcome that satisfies the definition for SDU’s but also can be used by other teachers (i.e. units for teaching, lists of resources, etc.).
More time to spend on the process. We had a very difficult time finding the time to actually observe each other’s classes.
More on computer topics like we had through staff development.
120
APPENDIX E
CONSENT FORM
Peer Coaching: Perspectives of Teachers and Supervisors I agree to take part in a research study titled “Peer Coaching: Perspectives of Teachers and Supervisors,” which is being conducted by Misty Overman, Department of Educational Leadership, 770-962-2229 under the direction of Drs. Joe and Jo Blase, Department of Educational Leadership, 706-542-3343. I understand that I will participate in tape-recorded interviews, approximately 45 minutes to 1 ½ hours long, during which the researcher will ask questions and take notes. My participation will be to provide insight and thoughts about peer coaching. I will also be available, at my convenience, for additional interviews or to provide any necessary feedback to the researcher. These interviews, initial and follow-up, will be scheduled at times and places that are convenient to both the researcher and myself. I understand that tape-recorded interviews, memos, and fieldnotes will be kept confidential. All information concerning me will be kept private. If information about me is published, it will be written in a way that you cannot be recognized Pseudonyms will be used in place of my name in fieldnotes, transcripts, and the final report so that no one, other than the researcher can identify me. I understand that all audio tapes will be erased at the completion of the study and that all notes, transcripts, and memos will be kept at the researcher’s home in a locked filing cabinet. Results of this study will be published in the form of the researcher’s dissertation, and will be sent to Gwinnett County Office of District Research. I understand that the researcher, who can be reached by telephone at 770-962-2229, will answer any further questions I have about the research, now or during the course of the project. My signature below indicates that the researcher has answered all of my questions to my satisfaction and that I consent to volunteer for this study. I have been given a copy of this form. _______________________________ Signature of Researcher. Date _______________________________ Signature of Participant Date For questions or problems about your rights please call or write: Human Subjects Office, University of Georgia, 606A Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-741; Telephone (706) 542-6514; E-Mail Address [email protected].
