10 page Literature Review on the relationship Between Coaching and Teaching.


Abstract

This paper includes a reference list of literatures relating to perspectives of Coaching and Teaching. We all grew up thinking that the teacher was someone who took boring lessons and made them great. A coach, on the other hand, typically operates from a different psychic starting place altogether. Whereas a teacher’s biggest obstacles are often ignorance and apathy, a coach tends to meet students at a moment in their lives when they are motivated to learn. When someone meets, or seeks out a coach, they may lack talent, focus, aptitude and skill, but they are usually at least somewhat interested, and often intensely interested, in the activity or lesson being coached. The coach’s challenge then becomes how to nurture that desire to learn and improve for the student to reach his or her greatest potential (Simmons, 2005). In general, teaching is primarily a one-way interaction. A person that knows something shows you how to do something or tells you some piece of information that they know. Coaching on the other had requires a cyclical, ongoing interaction. To coach someone, you need to first teach them something, then observe the student, and then provide feedback again. Unless all three of these interactions are taking place, it cannot be considered coaching.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
10 page Literature Review on the relationship Between Coaching and Teaching.
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Topical Reference List: Coaching and Teaching

A Study on the Relationship between Coaching and Teaching.

The purpose of this study is to contrast the relationship between coaching and teaching

concerning their instructional roles to gain insight into the instructional strategies supporting a

teacher’s coordination of content, technology, and pedagogy. A related purpose is to determine

the perspectives held by various entities of the education community. Research Questions: What is the difference between coaching and teaching? Which one comes first? Why do they go hand in hand?

Total views: 19 (Your views: 7)

References

Batt, E. G. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 997-1005. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.042

Abstract: This documentary account describes professional development for teachers in the USA serving culturally and linguistically diverse students. The purpose of the project was to monitor effectiveness of training in Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) and to assess the value of cognitive coaching.

Quantitative and qualitative data sources were employed, including a knowledge test, surveys, and interviews. Findings indicated workshops were effective and produced strong commitment to the model, but resulted in a disappointing level of implementation without a coaching phase. Results illustrate the criticality of time allocation for cognitive coaching, and teachers articulate specific changes they made in their instruction.

Drewe, S. B. (2000). An Examination of the Relationship Between Coaching and Teaching. Quest, 52(1), 79-88. doi:10.1080/00336297.2000.10491702

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between coaching and teaching. By examining the content of physical education and sports programs and the methods through which this content is engaged, the conception of coaching is expanded to include attributes that are typically viewed as having to do with the “educational enterprise.” Physical education must take seriously the teaching of sport as the competitive activity it is meant to be if physical education is to fulfill its role as an educative activity.

Jones, R. (2007). Coaching redefined: an everyday pedagogical endeavour. Sport, Education and Society, 12(2), 159-173. doi:10.1080/13573320701287486

Abstract: Following a brief introduction, in which the chosen format is discussed, this article comprises a dialogue between present-day coaching science (CS) and a critic, educational relationship (ER). ER disparages current conceptualizations of coaching as irrelevant and implores CS to redefine itself as an educational relationship between coach and athlete, paying attention to the micro-interactions that occur between them. Drawing on recent empirical work, ER makes the case that at the heart of coaching lies the everyday teaching and learning interface, and hence the activity should be considered a complex socio-pedagogical process. It is based on the premise that coaching, as opposed to being a knowable sequence, is problematic, multifaceted and fundamentally intertwined with teaching and learning at the micro-interactive level within given situational constraints. ER further suggests several pedagogical and sociological theories which can help CS better interpret its nature. Hence, it is argued that in going beyond the known to new theoretical horizons, more realistic analyses and understandings of what coaches do, whilst suggesting ways to do and teach it better, can be achieved.

Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Den Brok, P.,J., Boshuizen, H. P., & A. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of the coaching role: Do teachers’ ownership, sensemaking, and agency make a difference? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 991-1006. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s10212-012-0150-5

Abstract: This study was to explore innovation that was of central focus in this study pertained to the changing role of teachers towards a more coaching role in the classroom. Teachers’ implementation of the coaching role was examined through student perceptions. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire, completed by 253 of the students of 10 teachers. The findings showed that these teachers appeared to be implementing their coaching role to a reasonably strong degree. Moreover, a relationship was identified between the extent to which this role was implemented and teachers’ feelings of ownership, their processes of sense making, and their experiences of agency. The results therefore suggest that ownership, sense making, and agency do make a difference in the implementation of an educational innovation (Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Den Brok, P., J., Boshuizen, H. P., & A. 2013).

Langdon, F., & Ward, L. (2015). Educative mentoring: a way forward. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(4), 240-254. doi:10.1108/ijmce-03-2015-0006

Abstract: In recent years mentoring has been promoted as an essential, yet complex, new teacher induction dynamic. Mentors generally develop their knowledge of this role in isolation and in situ, and despite extensive research in the field few studies investigate how mentors learn. Therefore, it is important to continue to examine the complex aspects of learning to mentor. The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding the knowledge, attitudes and skills required by mentors to simultaneously focus on their own learning, new teachers’ learning and student learning.

Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H. E., & Spybrook, J. (2012). The Effect of Content-Focused Coaching on the Quality of Classroom Text Discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 214-228. doi:10.1177/0022487111434985

Abstract: This study examines the effect of a comprehensive literacy-coaching program focused on enacting a discussion-based approach to reading comprehension instruction (content-focused coaching [CFC]) on the quality of classroom text discussions over 2 years. The study used a cluster-randomized trial in which schools were assigned to either CFC or standard practice in the district for literacy coaching. Observers rated classroom text discussions significantly higher in CFC schools. Teachers in the CFC schools participated more frequently in coaching activities that emphasized planning and reflecting on instruction, enacting lessons in their classrooms, building knowledge of the theory underlying effective pedagogy, and differentiating instruction than did the teachers in the comparison condition. Qualitative analyses of coach interviews identified substantive differences in the professional development support available to coaches, scope of coaches’ job responsibilities, and focus of coaching resources in the CFC schools and comparison schools.

       Simons, T. (2005, April). The difference between teaching and coaching is bigger than most people think. Presentations19(4), 4. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA131958316&sid=summon&asid=f7a5b04c07a1210918887cbfc1180d3a

Abstract: What is the difference between a teacher and a coach? Well, when we reflect on the effect an extraordinary teacher has had on our lives, more often than not it is because that particular teacher was able to spark in us an interest or passion for something that didn’t exist in us before–a love of mythology, perhaps, or an enthusiasm for differential equations. Often, this transfer of interest happens because the teacher’s own passion for the subject is infectious. To be sure, being swept up in someone else’s love affair with a subject can be intoxicating. Listening to such people can spark insights that guide a person for the rest of their lives, and such life-altering epiphanies are not soon forgotten. Great teachers have that effect on people.

Stephens, D., Morgan, D. N., DeFord, D. E., Donnelly, A., Hamel, E., Keith, K. J., … Leigh, S. R. (2011). The Impact of Literacy Coaches on Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. Journal of Literacy Research43(3), 215-249. doi:10.1177/1086296×11413716

Abstract: Improving teacher effectiveness will increase student effectiveness. The field of literacy education has long been concerned with the question of how to help classroom teachers improve their practices so that students will improve as readers. The South Carolina Reading Initiative is an exception: It is a statewide, site-based, large-scale staff development effort led by site-selected literacy coaches. To understand teacher change, we used two surveys (Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile, and case study research to document teachers’ beliefs and practices. The study also had access to a state department survey. Across these data, the study found that teachers’ beliefs and practices became increasingly consistent with best practices as defined by standards set by the South Carolina State Department of Education, standards that were consistent with national standards. This suggests that large-scale staff development can affect teachers when the providers are site-based, site-selected literacy coaches (Stephens, D., Morgan, D. N., DeFord, D. E., Donnelly, A., Hamel, E., Keith, K. J., … Leigh, S. R., 2011).

Teemant, A., Wink, J., & Tyra, S. (2011). Effects of coaching on teacher use of sociocultural instructional practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 683-693. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.006

Abstract: This study evaluates a performance-based instructional coaching model intended to improve teacher pedagogy and classroom organization for educating diverse student populations. Elementary teachers (N = 21) participated in a 30-h workshop and seven individual coaching sessions across an academic year. The coaching model promoted use of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy, five research-based practices known to increase student achievement. Findings demonstrate performance-based instructional coaching led to statistically significant (a) improvements in teacher pedagogy, (b) patterns of teacher growth, and (c) changes in classroom organization. Implications for improving teachers’ ultimate achievement, the coaching protocol, and research are addressed. 

Walpole, S., McKenna, M., Uribe-Zarain, X., & Lamitina, D. (2010). The Relationships between Coaching and Instruction in the Primary Grades: Evidence from High-Poverty Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 115-140. doi:10.1086/653472

Abstract: This article establishes a relationship between Teaching and Coaching in early grades. This study explores teaching and coaching in grades K–3. It develops and validates observation protocols for both coaching and teaching. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were computed to identify and confirm factors that explained the protocol data. Three coaching factors were identified in both analyses: (1) collaboration with teachers, (2) coaching for differentiation, and (3) leadership support for coaching. Five teaching factors were identified in the exploratory factor analysis: (1) collaboration, (2) small-group management, (3) effective reading instruction, (4) read-aloud, and (5) assessment. In the confirmatory factor analysis the final teaching factors included (1) small-group work, (2) effective instruction, (3) read-aloud, and (4) management. Structural equation modeling indicated that each coaching factor was a significant predictor of at least one instructional factor, but there were differences by grade level. Implications of these findings for future research into causal relationships between coaching and enhanced instruction are discussed (Walpole, S., McKenna, M., Uribe-Zarain, X., & Lamitina, D., 2010).

Summary

Both teaching and coaching are of course helping someone learn a skill or sharing a certain piece of knowledge, and both are gifts that are given to a student. … The biggest difference is that, ultimately, teaching is about the teacher and coaching is about the student.

Bottom of Form

Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Order your assignment today!
Ace that class.

Order your paper
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp