Elementary-Level Instructional Coaches’ Perspectives on Roles and Teacher Effectiveness

Elementary-Level Instructional Coaches’ Perspectives

on Roles and Teacher Effectiveness

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

The focus of this study was to explore elementary-level Title I instructional

coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how their roles improved teacher effectiveness.

Since the accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind legislation, federal

mandates were implemented. These mandates required schools across the nation to

strengthen teaching and learning. Schools in a Southern state in the United States were

ranked by their College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) score to reflect

how well their school was performing. At the elementary level, the following areas

determined a school’s CCRPI score: content mastery, progress, closing gaps, and

readiness. Combined, these four areas yielded a maximum score of 100 points.

Achieving 100 points reflected exemplary performance. Research suggested that the

quality of teacher effectiveness was a critical component of student achievement

(Cochran-Smith et al., 2015). Many school districts hired instructional coaches to work

with classroom teachers (Walkowiak, 2016). While schools were rated using CCRPI

scores, classroom teachers were evaluated using a tool known as the Teacher Keys

Effectiveness System (TKES). Because of the correlation between teacher effectiveness

and student achievement, and the serious ramifications of CCRPI scores, many Title I

schools in a suburban school district in the research state hired instructional coaches to

improve teacher performance. Exploring elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’

perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness served as

the foundation for this study.

The purpose of this study was to address the gap in practice regarding

elementarylevel Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these

roles improved teacher effectiveness. Jablon and Dombro (2015) explained that there is a

gap in the research on the roles of instructional coaches because these roles are

inconsistent and vary across the states. Artigliere and Baecher (2016) shared a gap in the

literature on understanding instructional coaching roles and how they can support

teachers with different needs. Reinke and Herman (2014) explained how instructional

coaching could improve teacher effectiveness when coaches are given specific

instructions and ample time to work with teachers; however, without consistent roles,

instructional coaches are less effective in supporting teachers (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018).

Studying this problem may provide principals, instructional coaches, and school districts

a better understanding of instructional coaches’ roles and the roles that improve teacher

effectiveness. This study was exploring the gap in practice and the gap in literature on

the roles of instructional coaches.

In Chapter 1, I will further explain the background of instructional coaching, the

purpose of my study, and the problem that exists within instructional coaching. The

research questions will be shared with an explanation of the conceptual framework and

nature of the study. Definitions for unknown or unfamiliar terms will be provided.

Chapter 1 will also include an explanation of the assumptions, scope and delimitations,

and limitations.

Background

Increased requirements for student achievement have necessitated the hiring of

instructional coaches. A brief historical overview of federal educational mandates that

initiated the instructional coaching phenomenon begins with the passage of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) created under President Johnson’s

administration in 1965. This act was part of President Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation

and was designed to help provide educational equity for impoverished children (Wardlow,

2016). Over the years, ESEA evolved to include equity amongst other at-risk populations

including migrant and neglected children. In 1988, ESEA added an accountability

component that required schools to assess student achievement and report their

effectiveness. Under President Bush, ESEA was reauthorized in 2002, and became

known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under this act, schools were required

to demonstrate that all students were proficient in mathematics and reading (as evidenced

by standardized assessments) by 2014. In 2011, states were allowed to apply for waivers

that lessened mandates deemed by NCLB. In 2014, states were required to adopt the

CCPRI standards. In December 2015, ESEA was reauthorized as Every Student

Succeeds Act. This reauthorization gave much of the decision-making power back to the

states; however, states were required to assess student performance in Grades 3-8 and

publish their report cards showing student achievement. States were also given more

control in the creation of their teacher evaluation systems (Wardlow, 2016). Educational

leaders questioned how they could improve teacher effectiveness. The approach used by

many schools to improve teacher effectiveness was the implementation of instructional

coaches (Knight, 2016).

Although more instructional coaches are now being hired, the position is not a

new concept. Joyce and Showers (1983) researched the concept of peer collaboration and

support in the form of coaching in the 1980s. Coaching is a collegial approach to

improving instruction by creating a curriculum and setting goals (Joyce & Showers,

1981). Two years later, Joyce and Showers (1983) further defined the coaching process

by explaining the importance of collaboration and feedback. After extensive research,

Joyce and Showers (1996) published documents explaining the ineffectiveness of

traditional professional development models compared to the effectiveness of peer

coaching. Peer coaching was the seminal process of teachers observing one another and

providing support and feedback. Their research noted that many teachers did not

implement or apply the learning they received in a traditional setting; however, peer

coaching allowed teachers the opportunity to apply learning consistently (Joyce &

Showers, 1996).

Another name associated with extensive studies on the improvement of

instructional coaching is Knight (2007) at the University of Kansas. Instructional

coaches improve teacher practice and student learning by providing foundational support

to teachers (Knight, 2010). Knight (2011) explained how the instructional coach helps

teachers improve in vast areas within instruction including classroom management and

the creation of formative assessments. The instructional coaching process helps improve

the teachers’ overall effectiveness (Knight, 2018).

Strong (2018) explained how teacher effectiveness is an obscure concept due to

the definition being subjective. Some define teacher effectiveness according to student

achievement, whereas others base effectiveness on administrator observations. The

Intensive Partnership for Effective Teaching completed a study at seven sites across the

nation and found that measures of teacher effectiveness included a classroom observation

rating and a measure of student achievement growth (Garrett & Steinberg, 2015).

Classroom observations are used to provide instructional support and serve as a means to

assess performance (Garrett & Steinberg, 2015).

Instructional coaches exist to support teachers and positively influence student

achievement (Knight, 2018). In this study, I addressed the gap in research about the

practice of elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ roles and how these roles

improved teacher effectiveness. A national survey of literacy coaches shared the many

different titles and responsibilities of literacy coaches including resource provider,

collaborator, and supporter (Bean et al., 2015). Instructional coaching roles are not clear

to the instructional coach or consistent; therefore, the coach’s ability to improve teacher

effectiveness is lessened (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). There is a need for this study because

elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and their impact on

teacher effectiveness should be understood. Results from this study can help inform more

elementary instructional coaches and better prepare them to improve teacher

effectiveness. This research could inform administrators, professional development

leaders, and central office personnel on elementary-level instructional coaches’

perspectives of their roles and how these roles improve teacher effectiveness. This

knowledge may help provide clearer expectations for instructional coaches’ roles and may

also show how instructional coaching improves teacher effectiveness.

Problem Statement

The problem addressed in this study concerns the inconsistent instructional

coaching roles (Morel, 2014) in a school district within a Southern state. The

inconsistency of elementary-level instructional coaches’ roles impedes the instructional

coach’s ability to increase teacher effectiveness (Mudzimiri, Burroughs, Leubeck, Sutton,

& Yopp, 2014). When instructional coaches do not understand their roles, they struggle

to support teachers (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). Although many school districts and

schools employ instructional coaches, Neumerski (2013) and Wolpert-Gawron (2016)

explained that the roles are not consistent within the coaching field. Desimone and Pak

(2017) explained how instructional coaches are less effective in supporting teachers when

they do not have clear expectations of their roles. When instructional coaches have clear

roles, their support can improve teaching effectiveness and increase student performance

(Tanner, Quintis, & Gamboa, 2017).

There is little research stating the specific roles of instructional coaches (Tanner et

al., 2017), and almost no research specifically addressing the perspectives on instructional

coaches’ roles according to instructional coaches (Calo, Sturtevant, & Kopfman, 2015).

This basic qualitative study addressed the gap in the literature about the practice on

instructional coaches’ roles and may contribute to the body of knowledge on instructional

coaching by exploring elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives of their roles

and how these roles improve teacher effectiveness.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of my study was to explore elementary-level Title I instructional

coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness.

The University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning, Learning Forward, and Public

Impact (2016) noted that instructional coaches need specific roles to help them stay

focused on their purpose of improving teacher effectiveness. My research addressed the

gap in the literature about the practice regarding elementary-level Title I instructional

coaches’ perspectives of their roles and the roles that improved teacher effectiveness. The

knowledge gained through my study may assist principals, instructional coaches, and

school districts to describe the roles of instructional coaches and the roles that improve

teacher effectiveness. The study took place at seven elementary schools in a school

district in a Southern state. I used a basic qualitative design consisting of seven

semistructured interviews to gather information regarding the phenomenon of

elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives of their roles and how these roles

improve teacher effectiveness. Thematic analysis was used to determine themes within

the data. To help minimize biases, a research journal was used to document reflections,

decisions, and questions.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

Conceptual Framework

Instructional coaches are tasked with the responsibility of helping teachers

become more effective in their practice so students can become more successful (Knight,

2018). An instructional coach is a person who partners with teachers to help him or her

become more effective (Knight, 2007). Instructional coaches serve in many capacities.

Bean and Ippolito (2016) explained how some instructional coaches support teachers in a

one-on-one capacity, whereas other coaches focused more on planning whole group

professional learning opportunities. Bean and Ippolito continued to explain how

instructional coaches could become inundated with the managerial tasks of organizing

and facilitating assessments or gathering and organizing materials. Defining the roles of

the instructional coach is often inconsistent because some instructional coaches serve as

consultants, but others may be more of a facilitator of strategies (Morel, 2014).

Organizational role theory served as the conceptual framework for this study. Katz

and Kahn (1978) developed organizational role theory based on the premise that

employees enact specific roles in their organization in order to perform their required

tasks effectively. Huse (1980) defined a role in an organization as “the set of activities

that the individual is expected to perform and constitutes a psychological linkage between

the individual and the organization” (p. 53). An organization is a network of employees

enacting specific roles that they are expected or required to perform (Katz & Kahn,

1978). For an organization to perform effectively, the roles must be clearly

communicated to the employee and accepted by the employee (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In

the school setting, instructional coaches are given roles and responsibilities by their

administrator and school leaders.

Organizational role theory has four basic assumptions associated with role-taking,

role-consensus, role-compliance, and role-conflict (Parker & Wickham, 2007).

Roletaking assumes that the employee will accept the role given to them by their

employer. Role-consensus assumes there is an understanding of the expectations and

roles between the employee and employer. Role-compliance assumes the employee will

adhere to the specific and consistent roles outlined by the employer. Role-conflict

assumes conflict will occur when the expectations of one role conflict with another role

(Parker & Wickham, 2007).

Organizational role theory served as the foundation for the two research questions.

The first research question referred to the instructional coach’s perspective on the roles of

instructional coaches. The second research question referred to the instructional coach’s

perspective on the roles that improve teacher effectiveness. The development of the

interview protocol was created from the two assumptions of organizational role theory:

role-taking and role-compliance. The basic qualitative approach was most appropriate for

the study, because the interviews provided an opportunity to understand participants’

perspectives on their roles and their experiences with role-taking and role-compliance.

The data were thematically analyzed to determine if themes existed in relation to the

framework.

Nature of the Study

Through my research, I conducted a basic qualitative study to explore

elementarylevel Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of their roles and how these

roles improved teacher effectiveness. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained,

A basic qualitative study would be interested in (1) how people interpret their

experiences, (2) how they construct their worlds, and (3) what meaning they

attribute to their experiences. The overall purpose is to understand how people

make sense of their lives and their experiences. (p. 24)

A purposeful sample of seven instructional coaches participated in one openended

interview. Each interview was audio recorded to ensure accuracy in their responses in

regard to my notes. Interview data were transcribed using NVivo software. Braun,

Clarke, Hayfield, and Terry’s (2019) six-phase guide was used to analyze data

thematically. The six-phases of thematic analysis are (a) familiarization of data, (b)

generating codes, (c) determining themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming

themes, and (f) writing the report. All data were analyzed using open coding and axial

coding. Member checking was used to increase the credibility and validity of the data.

After collecting and analyzing the data, the results were presented in a two-page

summary.

Definitions

The following definitions are listed to provide a consistent understanding of terms

used throughout the study. Each term is defined from educational research.

Effective feedback: Feedback that specifies which strategies a teacher does well,

which strategies a teacher could improve upon, and which strategies a teacher could

implement into their lessons (Marzano & Simms, 2013).

Instructional coach: A person who partners with teachers to help improve

classroom instruction by providing professional development, utilizing research-based

instructional practices, modeling instructional strategies, co-teaching, observing teaching,

and providing timely feedback on performance (Knight, 2007).

Nonevaluative feedback: Feedback that helps teachers realize and improve their

instructional weaknesses in a confidential and supportive environment (Marzano &

Simms, 2013).

Peer coaching: Teachers coaching one another to implement new teaching

strategies (Joyce & Showers, 1996).

Professional learning community: An ongoing collaborative process in which

teachers analyze data and conduct action research to meet the needs of all students

(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016).

Teacher effectiveness: For this study, effectiveness is measured by how well a

teacher scores on their TKES evaluation. A score of IV or III indicates that teachers are

proficient, while a score of II or I indicates that they are not effective (Department of

Education, 2018).

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System: “A common evaluation system designed for

building teacher effectiveness and ensuring consistency and comparability throughout the

state” (Department of Education, 2018).

Assumptions

Creswell (2018) explained how researchers must be aware of their assumptions,

because these assumptions can shape the research questions and how the researcher

approaches the research. The important assumption in my study was that instructional

coaches would answer the interview questions honestly. This assumption was necessary

because the responses provided by the participants were used for data analysis.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of my study was on the perspectives of elementary-level Title I

instructional coaches on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness in

one school district in a Southern state. This focus was chosen due to a school district’s

focus on employing instructional coaches in Title I schools. Seven instructional coaches

were interviewed in a school district in a Southern state. Students, teachers, or

administrators were excluded from this study, because the focus of the study was on

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how the roles improved teacher

effectiveness. Organization role theory was most appropriate for this study because it

explained how individuals perform a role based on their expectations (Biddle, 1986). The

sociocultural theory of andragogy was not an appropriate framework for this study

because this study was centered on perspectives of roles rather than an understanding of

how adults learn (Finn, 2011). Knight’s (2010) partnership philosophy was also not

appropriate for this study, because this study was focused on the instructional coaching

roles rather than identifying the instructional coaching process.

My study was not intended to determine whether instructional coaches were

effective in their role as an instructional coach; rather, my research was focused on

understanding instructional coaches’ perspectives on their role and how these roles

improved teacher effectiveness. The results may be useful in informing instructional

coaches, administrators, and district leaders on instructional coaches’ perspectives of their

roles. To establish transferability of the findings, thick description of the data collection

process and the research setting were completed.

Limitations

The findings and conclusions were based on the perspectives of seven elementary-

level instructional coaches. The convenience sample of seven Title I instructional

coaches limited the transferability of the research; however, the thick description

provided a detailed account of the research to help minimize the limitations (Anney,

2014). As a former instructional coach, I was vigilant about potential confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is when the researcher has a preconceived belief and uses the data to

confirm or support his or her belief (Sarniak, 2015). To minimize confirmation bias, I

challenged my beliefs and reevaluated my impressions by documenting ideas in my

research journal. To address possible biases, each participant took part in a

semistructured interview that allowed me to better analyze participant perspectives. I

also used member checking to ensure that data were accurate.

Significance

My research may provide a deeper understanding of elementary-level Title I

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improve teacher

effectiveness. Educators considering the job of an instructional coach may benefit from

this research because they may have a clearer understanding of the roles of an

instructional coach (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016). As instructional coaches improve their

ability to understand and ultimately complete their roles, they may be able to help

increase teacher effectiveness (Tanner et al., 2017). My study may contribute to social

change by changing the perception of the roles of instructional coaches. The instructional

coaches, administrators, and teachers would benefit from this change. The greatest

benefit would be in the improvement of teacher performance through the guidance and

support of their instructional coach.

Summary

Instructional coaches are responsible for helping improve teacher effectiveness.

The focus of this study was to explore instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles

and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness. For this basic qualitative study,

semistructured interviews played a vital role in gathering data to help answer the research

questions addressing instructional coaches’ perspectives. The data collected were

analyzed to determine codes and themes within the interviews.

In Chapter 1 of this study, I explained the purpose of the study and emphasized

how instructional coaching is useful in today’s schools. The conceptual framework of

organization role theory was explained as the foundation for my research questions. I

provided definitions of key concepts and clarified assumptions. The focus of the study

was expressed in addition to the delimitations and limitations. Finally, I explained the

significance of this research and how the research could create positive social change by

helping to improve teacher effectiveness.

The following chapter consists of the literature review. The literature review

begins with an explanation of the position of an instructional coach and how researchers

have defined the roles. While completing my review of the literature, I found a gap in

practice and in the literature on identifying consistent definitions of the roles of

instructional coaches and the roles that improve teacher effectiveness.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this study was to explore elementary-level Title I instructional

coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness.

The problem addressed in this study was that the inconsistency of instructional coaches’

roles hinders their ability to increase teacher effectiveness (Mudzimiri et al., 2014). The

knowledge gained through this study may help instructional coaches better prepare for

their roles.

Killion (2017), a senior advisor to Learning Forward located in Oxford, Ohio,

explained how coaching helps improve teacher performance and student achievement.

Instructional coaches help teachers by providing feedback with strategies to increase

effectiveness (Spelman, Bell, Thomas, & Briody, 2016). Mangin and Dunsmore (2015)

noted how instructional coaches have expressed frustration on not having consistent roles

as an instructional coach and how their roles vary on the support they are provided by

their administrator. Instructional coaches are often tasked with additional duties

including tutoring and substitute teaching (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). There is a gap in

research regarding the lack of consistency in understanding the role of the instructional

coach (Heineke & Polnick, 2013).

In the following section, I describe the iterative search process used to locate

research on instructional coaching, instructional coaching roles, challenges of

instructional coaching, and teacher effectiveness. Primary writings of key theorists and

researchers will be synthesized and key concepts will be reviewed and explained.

Literature Search Strategy

A majority of the research I review in this chapter was completed between 2016

and 2019. Some of the references are older; however, they were only used due to their

significance to the study. The following are some of the key terms used during the

literature search: instructional coaching, instructional coach, teacher effectiveness,

exemplary teaching, student achievement, professional learning, and organizational role

theory. I used a variety of research databases from Walden University’s online library,

including Education Research Complete, Educational Resource Informational Center,

ERIC, ProQuest, and SAGE Journal Online. Each database was used and each of the key

terms were utilized to find information on the perspectives of instructional coaches and

their roles.

During the literature search in Education Research Complete, the term teacher

effectiveness was narrowed to exemplary teaching. Educational Resource Information

Center had literature on instructional coaching and the search was narrowed to

instructional coach. The main key terms used with ERIC, ProQuest, and SAGE Journal

Online were instructional coaching, instructional coach, teacher effectiveness, and

organizational role theory. Additionally, there was little research on how instructional

coaches improve teacher effectiveness.

Conceptual Framework

School leaders are utilizing instructional experts to help improve student

performance (Nappi, 2014). Instructional coaches are able to support achievement by

reinforcing rigorous instruction and assessment that is appropriate for the learners while

also aligning to the administrator’s goals (Medrich & Charner, 2017a). However, the

roles of instructional coaches vary from school to school based on the school or

administrator’s needs (Tanner et al., 2017). This study explored instructional coaches’

perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness.

I used organizational role theory as the conceptual framework for this study.

Organizational role theory is a framework that defines how individuals behave in social

situations (Huse, 1980). This theory was developed in the 1960s to gain knowledge on

how the workplace affects the physical and mental state of employees and how these

states influence behavior (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Katz and

Kahn (1978) further explained how organizations were comprised of employees enacting

specific roles that are “expected” and “required” by the organization. For this study, the

workplace is the instructional coaches’ school within the district and the organization is

the district’s administration. Huse (1980) explained how a role is the totality of

expectations placed on a person by another. Within the school setting, roles are the

activities or responsibilities an individual is expected to perform according to the

organization (Huse, 1980). Rogers and Molnar (1976) noted how a person performing a

certain role is expected to carry out the appropriate tasks and make decisions appropriate

to the role. Biddle (1986) suggested that people are social actors motivated by their

social identities and believed expectations. For instructional coaches, the activities or

responsibilities and decisions are determined by the administrator’s expectations

appropriate to their role. Katz and Kahn (1978) explained how the employer sends or

explains the role to the employee based on their perceptions of what their role should be.

The employee then receives the role; however, the perceived role is based on the

employee’s perspectives on what the employer shared.

Organizational role theory has four basic assumptions associated with role taking,

role-consensus, role- compliance, and role conflict (Parker & Wickham, 2007). The

roletaking assumption is centered on an individual “taking” the role that is given to them

by their employer (Biddle, 1986). In the organizational setting the employer assumes the

employee is accepting or “taking” the role once they are hired (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For

this study, the role taker is the qualified teacher who accepted the role of the instructional

coach. The role taken by the employee can be experienced differently or perceived

differently than how the employer explained the role (Katz & Kahn, 1978); therefore, role

consensus may not be consistent (Parker & Wickham, 2007). The second assumption of

role-consensus is between the employer and the employee (Parker & Wickham, 2007).

Biddle (1986) explained that role-consensus reinforces the commonly held norms of an

organization’s culture. The organization’s norms for this study would be outlined by each

building principal where the instructional coach was employed. The third assumption is

role-compliance. This assumption states that the roles are clearly defined and followed

by the employee (Parker & Wickham, 2007). The roles are often listed in the job

description. The final assumption is role conflict. Role conflict takes place when an

employee understands the expectations but is unable to fulfill the roles (Huse, 1980).

Ebbers and Wijnberg (2017) explained that role conflict occurs when employees are

given inconsistent or conflicting roles or demands. Role conflict causes similar effects as

role ambiguity, including low job satisfaction, increased stress, low self-confidence, and a

sense of uselessness (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Huse (1980) explained how decreasing role

conflict could help employees work more effectively and improve their job satisfaction.

For the purpose of this study, I only used role-taking and role-compliance

assumptions from the framework to answer the research questions. The framework of

organizational role theory benefited the study by providing a foundation on the

importance of instructional coaching roles being understood and performed according to

the expectations outlined by administration. The framework also informed the

development of the interview protocol, which included questions centered on role-taking

and role-compliance. The data collected through interviews were thematically analyzed.

Literature Review Related to Key Concepts and Variable

Instructional Coaching

Heineke and Polnick (2013) explained how more schools are using instructional

coaches due to the increase of school accountability. To meet the demands of improving

student achievement, many initiatives regarding educational reforms have focused on

improving teacher quality (Huguet, Marsh, & Farrell, 2014; Wilder, 2014; Woulfin &

Rigby, 2017;). One method of meeting this challenge has been to hire instructional

coaches to spur changes in teaching and learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017; Walkowiak,

2016). Instructional coaches serve as specialists focused on improving teacher instruction

(Teemant & Berghoff, 2014). Anderson and Wallin (2018) explained how some

instructional coaches work in the school district’s central office and visit schools a few

times a month, whereas other instructional coaches work in the schools and provide more

intimate support to the teachers. Schools are providing high-quality professional learning

for teachers through the work of instructional coaches (Heineke & Polnick,

2013). Lowenhaupt, McKinney, and Reeves (2014) noted that instructional coaching has

been used to increase student achievement by improving teaching strategies in the United

States.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (2011) explained

how coaching is a relationship-based process geared to helping a teacher improve his or

her skills by focusing on goal-setting and achievement. Joyce and Showers (1996)

explained how the need for instructional coaches evolved in 1970 from the national

movements to improve instruction. The traditional forms of professional development

were not creating results with teacher effectiveness or student achievement. Joyce and

Showers (1981) found that modeling, practice, and feedback were necessary for teachers

to improve their practice; therefore, coaching was birthed.

The roles of the instructional coach are often found in the job description created

by the school district or school (Knight, 2010). Often, instructional coaches help teachers

reflect upon their strengths and weaknesses, analyze student data, and determine next

steps to improve student performance (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Instructional coaches can

make an impact with teacher instruction and student learning (Knight, 2016).

Instructional coaching helps provide differentiated support to teachers where teachers can

learn to implement research-based instructional practices into their daily lessons (Devine,

Houssemand, & Meyers, 2013).

The University of Florida Lastinger Center for Learning, Learning Forward, and

Public Impact (2016) collaborated to create Coaching for Impact, which broadly defines

coaching as professional support, taking place in the classroom, which helps teachers

become more effective in lesson planning, self-reflection, and data analysis. Sailors and

Price (2015) explained, through their study on a coaching model used to improve reading

instruction and reading achievement, how teachers need time and concentrated support

from the instructional coach to improve upon their practices. Marzano and Simms (2013)

highlighted five main goals of coaching which include: (a) helping teachers improve in

their teaching practices, (b) providing examples of exemplar teaching, (c) supporting

teachers to maintain effective teaching, (d) helping teachers achieve consistency, and (e)

allowing teachers opportunities to take risks. These goals help coaches determine how

they can further support teachers.

The Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching,

in addition to three other authors, explained how instructional coaching should be

nonevaluative and confidential and all activities should be focused on helping teachers

become more effective in high-quality instructional practices (Medrich & Charner,

2017b). Knight (2018) noted that effective instructional coaches treat teachers with

respect and consideration. These coaches use the Partnership Principles as their

professional guide on how they should approach their role as an instructional coach. The

Partnership Principle is a philosophy of coaching that allows the teacher to be the

ultimate decision maker. Knight (2018) explained the seven Partnership Principles as

follows:

1. Equality – Instructional coach and teacher work together to share ideas and

make decisions.

2. Choice – Instructional coach encourages the teacher to choose his or her own

professional goals.

3. Voice – Instructional coach creates a safe environment where they can learn

from the teacher, and where the teacher can share their concerns.

4. Dialogue – Instructional coach and teacher openly discuss ideas as partners.

5. Reflection – Instructional coach provides opportunities where the teacher can

reflect on their practice by having reflective conversations.

6. Praxis – Instructional coach applies their knowledge and skill to ensure the

coaching is meaningful and useful to teachers.

7. Reciprocity – Instructional coach shares in the learning process and grows

from the instructional coaching experience.

Researchers found that instructional coaches help increase a teacher’s awareness

of best practices, and foster conversations that help teachers self-reflect on their practice

and determine next steps to improving student performance (Tanner et al., 2017). Bean

and Ippolito (2016) explained that the goal of coaching is to improve student learning,

which requires coaches to provide the very best educational experiences for all of its

students by improving teacher practice. When the instructional coaching process is

implemented appropriately, instructional coaches can improve teacher effectiveness and

increase student performance (Anderson & Wallin, 2018).

Instructional Coaching Roles

Polly, Mraz, and Algozzine (2013) found that instructional coaches have the

ability to improve teacher effectiveness when they have a clear understanding of their

roles. Instructional coaches have been considered change agents whose influence may

transform school culture (Aguilar, 2013; Wolpert-Gawron, 2016). Instructional coaches

support teachers by listening to their concerns, keeping their relationship and

conversations confidential, and providing instructional support as needed (Eisenberg,

Eisenberg, Medrich, & Charner, 2017). Instructional coaches help encourage teachers to

support the organization’s vision and mission, which helps the overall school culture

improve (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Although there has been tremendous growth in the use

of instructional coaches to improve student achievement, Rogers (2014) noted that few

actual studies have been conducted to help educators better understand what instructional

coaches should be doing, and how best it can be done.

Knight (2018) explained how instructional coaches should be using a coaching

cycle of three stages: identify, learn, and improve. The first stage, identifying, is often

done while the instructional coach and teacher watching a video of the teacher in action.

As a team, the instructional coach and teacher determine the area in need of improvement

(Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Next, the instructional coach helps the teacher “learn” strategies

to help him or her strengthen the area of needed improvement. This can be done through

sharing resources, modeling, co-teaching, and providing feedback (Knight, 2016).

Finally, the strategies are implemented, and study data and/or self-reflections help the

teacher realize their improvement (Knight, 2018).

Jablon et al. (2016) suggested a coach’s role includes building an honest and respectful

relationship with the teacher where goals can be created. The relationship is created

through ongoing conferences and conversations on the teacher’s needs (Hathaway et al.,

2015). Killion and Harrison (2017) noted instructional coaches’ roles could include

mentor, data coach, learning facilitator, and instructional specialist. The role of mentor is

often needed for new teachers to the profession because the instructional coach provides

ongoing support and guidance (Knight, 2016). As the learning facilitator and content

expert, the instructional coach provides resources and support to strengthen the teacher’s

performance (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). The data coach role helps teachers learn how to

use their classroom data to create lesson plans (Wang, 2017). Knight (2016) explained

that instructional coaches help teachers by providing instructional resources, planning

collaboratively, giving feedback, and modeling lessons when appropriate. The literature

has consistently discussed six roles of an instructional coach: (a) relationship building, (b)

data coach, (c) classroom supporter, (d) mentor, (e) learning facilitator, and (f) school

leader.

Relationship builder. The most common instructional coach role found

throughout the literature is building relationships (Anderson & Wallin, 2018).

Relationship building starts with the instructional coach earning the teacher’s trust

(Walkowiak, 2016). Building trust with teachers is vital for the coaching process to be

successful (Knight, 2018). Aguilar (2013) suggested 10 ways an instructional coach can

build trust: (a) plan and prepare meetings, (b) cautiously gather background information

on the teacher, (c) establish confidentiality, (d) listen without judgment, (e) ask questions,

(e) share personal connections, (f) validate the teacher’s experiences, (g) be open about

who you are and what you do, (h) ask permission to coach, and (i) keep commitments.

Building trust helps teachers feel more comfortable taking risks in the classroom.

(Lowenhaupt, et al., 2014).

Planning and preparing for the meeting helps the instructional coach identify a

clear reality of the teacher’s performance (Knight, 2018). The coach collaborates with

the teacher to determine a convenient time for them to meet (Foltos, 2015). Once a

meeting time is set, the instructional coach begins gathering background information on

the teacher by video recording the teacher during a lesson (Knight, 2018). Being

recorded can cause some teachers to feel a sense of vulnerability (Knight, 2007). It is

imperative for the instructional coach to create an environment of trust, support, and

confidentiality (Eisenberg et al., 2017). A supportive environment is established by the

instructional coach having a nonjudgmental approach to the conversations and feedback

(Lowenhaupt et al., 2014). The instructional coach prepares reflective questions that

guide the teacher through the self-reflection process (Knight, 2018). Additionally, the

instructional coaching and teacher relationship is strengthened when the instructional

coach finds opportunities to share their personal experiences of teaching (Thomas, Bell,

Spelman, & Briody, 2015) as a part of a supportive environment. These shared personal

experiences coupled with effective communication can result teachers experiencing

validation of their beliefs and being understood by the instructional coach (Walkowiak,

2016). This honest relationship includes the instructional coach being forthcoming on

their plans of working with the teacher (Tanner et al., 2017). The instructional coach can

then ask the teacher if they agree to working, as a team, towards achieving a specific goal

(Aguilar, 2013). This commitment is sealed by the instructional coach consistently

working with the teacher through the coaching cycle of identifying the problem, learning

how to improve, and applying strategies to improve overall effectiveness in the classroom

(Knight, 2018).

Instructional coaches build a relationship with their teachers by providing support,

actively listening, and encouraging teachers to reflect (Sanstead, 2016). Pletcher (2015)

noted instructional coaches build trust with teachers by not sharing the teacher

observations and discussions with administrators. Medrich and Charner (2017a) noted

how coaching conversations are most effective when teachers are guaranteed

confidentiality and given opportunities for self-reflection. Gurgur (2017) found

instructional coaching conversations were most effective when the coach was a guide

rather than an enforcer of rules or ideals. Instructional coaches can help teachers realize

their potential by first building a trusting relationship then by motivating teachers to

implement strategies that could improve their instruction (Jablon et al., 2016). Coaches

can also build relationships by inquiring about the teacher’s personal life and sharing

challenges the coach experienced while in the classroom (Walkowiak, 2016). Once

positive relationships are created, a domino effect can occur with other teachers (Pletcher,

2015). When an instructional coach is able to build trust with teachers, the teacher is

more willing to collaborate with the coach (Knight, 2018).

Data coach. Researchers found that teachers understand the purpose of data;

however, they struggle to understand how to use data to make instructional decisions

(Huguet et al., 2014; Polly et al., 2013). One of the best uses of an instructional coach’s

time is helping teachers make instructional decisions based on data (Anderson & Wallin,

2018). Researchers discussed how instructional coaches could help mediate a teacher’s

response to data. The skill of data analysis was taught, modeled, and then supported by

the instructional coach. (Marsh, Bertrand, & Huguet, 2015). The instructional coach

teaches the educator how to analyze data and use the data to make instructional decisions

(Range, Pijanowski, Duncan, Scherz, & Hvidston, 2014). Huguet et al. (2014) explained:

Coaches are in a position to affect teacher practice on a wide scale. With an

increased demand for teachers to use data to guide their instruction, coaches are a

potential lifeline to building requisite skills and knowledge that help teachers

access, interpret, and respond to data in ways that yield improvements in teaching

and learning (p.21).

Instructional coaches help teachers use data to create measurable professional

goals (Knight, 2018). Teachers use observation notes, anecdotal notes, common

assessments, student work samples, and standardized assessments to help them make

informed decisions on how their students are performing and areas where they could

improve within their instruction (Williams, 2013). Formative assessments are analyzed to

help teachers monitor student progress, provide feedback, and create lesson plans (Bean

& Ippolito, 2016). DuFour et al. (2016) shared the importance of teachers analyzing data

in a collaborative setting. The collaborative meeting should be centered on discussing

effective interventions and strategies to support learning and how to modify learning

when appropriate.

Classroom supporter. Instructional coaches provide learning opportunities to

strengthen the instructional practices performed by teachers (Devine et al., 2013). The

learning opportunities can be in the form of one-on-one coaching or small group coaching

(Knight, 2018). The one-on-one approach to instructional coaching helps tailor support

to meet the needs of the specific teacher (Desimone & Pak, 2017). Joyce and Showers

(1981) found that one-to-one coaching was much more effective than traditional

professional development, because teachers were able to practice and implement the

strategies with support of a peer, which is absent in traditional professional development.

Ma, Xin, and Du (2018) explained how teachers receiving support from a peer

significantly helps teachers improve their performance. Instructional coaching helps

teachers transfer what they learn in the coaching setting into the classroom (Joyce &

Showers, 1996).

Medrich and Charner (2017a) noted teachers working with an instructional coach

reported improving their performance and using more research-based strategies due to the

instructional coach’s feedback and guidance. Instructional coaches must have a deep

knowledge on strategies that can help improve student learning (Knight, 2016). It is vital

for instructional coaches to be proficient in past and current pedagogical knowledge to

fully support all teachers (Johnson, 2016). Instructional coaches provide curricular and

classroom management resources for teachers (Desimone & Pak, 2017). The resources

can include teaching strategies, current research on best practices, and new techniques

that will help improve the teacher’s performance (Range et al., 2014). The teachers use

the resources to help improve their areas of weakness (Tanner et al., 2017). The

curricular and classroom management resources, provided by the instructional coach, can

help teachers create lesson plans that meet the needs of all their students (Marzano &

Simms, 2013). Instructional coaches share instructional strategies to support the teacher’s

professional improvement (Hathaway et al., 2015). Instructional coaching has a positive

effect on the instructional practices of teachers by providing high quality professional

development (Kraft, Blazar, & Hogan, 2018; Piper & Zuilkowski, 2015).

Many instructional coaches perform teacher observations and then provide

feedback on their performance (Knight, 2007). The teacher observation is a tool that

helps coaches understand the strengths and weaknesses of a teacher’s instructional

practice. While the teacher is teaching, the instructional coach writes observation notes,

which are shared with the teacher and are used to help determine goals the teacher would

like to accomplish while working the coach (Aguilar, 2013). Instructional coaches should

observe teachers in a nonevaluative environment (Jaquith, 2013). Feedback should be

specific and honest to what has been seen through the observation (Marzano &

Simms, 2013). Observations are grounded in a person’s perspectives; therefore, Knight

(2018) suggested using a checklist to help minimize the amount of biases. Marzano and

Simms (2013) shared the importance of instructional coaches providing feedback to

teachers in a timely manner that provides specific areas of growth.

Mentor. Russell (2015) explained how being a mentor is a distinct role of

instructional coaches, because new teachers need guidance with their instructional

strategies and overall professional knowledge. As a mentor, instructional coaches

function in the capacity of helping new teachers, which includes anything pertaining to

instructional and classroom management strategies (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Mentors

also support teachers that may not be new to the profession but are new teachers to the

school (Chien, 2013). A mentor advises new teachers through difficult professional

decisions, provides emotional support, and supports the teacher as they become

acclimated to their new position (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016). Crossley and Silverman

(2016) noted how mentors provide emotional support by build relationships with their

mentees and by being trustworthy and sharing their insights. Mentoring is a collaborative

process that requires the instructional coach and teacher to have honest conversations

about the teacher’s practice (Cramer, 2016). Instructional coaches can mentor teachers in

different areas including but not limited to understanding how to engage students in the

curriculum, differentiating lesson plans, and analyzing data to inform instruction

(Callahan, 2016).

One way that instructional coaches support new teachers is through modeling

lessons (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016; Hathaway et al., 2015). Stefaniak (2017) explained

how modeling and scaffolding provide support for novice teachers in improving their

skillset. Modeling is when a teacher or instructional coach shows an example of how to

do a specific skill (Knight, 2007). Anderson and Wallin (2018) explained modeling can

occur in two different ways. One way an instructional coach can model a lesson is during

a professional development session where the lesson is simulated without students

present. Another way modeling can occur, which is often more popular with teachers, is

where the instructional coach models the lesson with the teacher’s students. Instructional

coaches must be strong teachers in order to model lessons and provide resources in

various instructional areas (Johnson, 2016). Marzano and Simms (2013) noted the

importance of instructional coaches modeling how to teach a lesson, because modeling

provides an authentic example to the teacher of what quality teaching should be.

Sanstead (2016) added that modeling may not always go as planned; however, teachers

benefit from seeing an instructional coach struggle, reflect, and reteach when needed.

Hammond and Moore (2018) explained how instructional coaches modeling instructional

strategies, observing lessons, and providing feedback helps to improve instructional

practice. As a mentor, instructional coaches must cultivate a positive professional

relationship with their mentee centered on research-based instructional strategies

(Thomas et al., 2015).

Learning facilitator. As a learning facilitator, instructional coaches are tasked

with creating and facilitating job-embedded, standards-based professional development

according to the needs of the school and the teachers (Range et al., 2014). The

professional development, provided by the coach, is determined by the administration

team and school needs (Knight, 2007). Norman and Nordine (2016) explained how

continual professional development, provided by the learning facilitator, could promote

more effective instruction and improve student achievement. Ma et al. (2018) also added

how learning facilitators could provide specific opportunities for teachers to develop

proficiency within the curriculum, instruction, and assessment resulting in increasing

student outcomes. When instructional coaches are cognizant of their role as learning

facilitators, they can transfer their proficiency to the classroom teacher, resulting in

positive student outcomes. Spelman et al. (2016) found that instructional coaches

providing consistent professional development created a positive impact on teacher

performance evidenced by the increase in student achievement. Jacobs, Boardman,

Potvin, and Wang (2018) noted instructional coaches could improve classroom instruction

through professional development. Traditional professional development in a large group

setting can be less effective than having an instructional coach come into the classroom

and model appropriate instructional techniques that are tailored to meet the needs of a

particular teacher (Knight, 2007). The instructional coach should support the

interventions and strategies outlined by the administrator for positive impact to occur

related to student and teacher performance (Devine et al., 2013). Teachers found the

learning facilitator’s professional development workshops to be meaningful and useful

when the strategies taught are specific to the needs of the teacher (Bayar, 2014). Dixon,

Yssel, McConnell, and Hardin (2014) found teachers were able to make greater

improvements with differentiating classwork for students when specific professional

development was provided. White, Howell Smith, Kunz, and Nugent (2015) investigated

the effects of instructional coaching in science for rural science teachers. The teachers

appreciated the professional development provided by the learning facilitator, because it

helped change their perspectives on teaching.

Professional development is not restricted to the methods described in previous

paragraphs. Many schools use professional learning communities as a

professionaldevelopment opportunity for teachers (Williams, 2013). Instructional

coaches serve as learning facilitators in the professional learning environment.

Professional learning communities are ongoing collaborative teams that work towards

improving student achievement (DuFour et al., 2016). Williams (2013) noted how

teachers feel more comfortable learning with a team or partner rather than learning in

isolation. The teachers can work with their peers and the instructional coach on creating

lesson plans and analyzing data to drive instruction (DuFour et al., 2016). When

instructional coaches collaborate with principals to implement professional learning

communities, teacher classroom practices and student learning can improve (Bean &

Ippolito, 2016).

School leader. Instructional coaches are to think like leaders by considering the

school’s purpose in the instructional decisions (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Coaches should

work with the principal to create leadership teams and set goals for the school (Anderson

& Wallin, 2018). The work of the instructional coach is challenging, because they must

support teachers while following through with the goals established by administrators

(Johnson, 2016). Having a growth mindset is crucial for an instructional coach to fulfill

their role (Anderson & Wallin, 2018). Dweck (2015) explained the growth mindset, how

someone perceives his or her abilities, plays a role in the person’s ability to improve or

achieve a certain goal. Instructional coaches are tasked with the challenge of motivating

teacher and helping improve teacher effectiveness; therefore, they must first believe in

their abilities to create positive change (Knight, 2016). Instructional coaches function as

a positive force, focused on the vision of the school, and dedicated to making necessary

improvements (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Coaches help serve as school leaders, by

establishing and maintaining a culture of collaboration to improve instruction and student

performance (Foltos, 2015). Instructional coaches are providers of information and

resources for the school (Kurz, Reddy, & Glover, 2017). The instructional coach serves

as a liaison between county departments and the teachers by sharing information with the

teachers from county meetings (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016). Instructional coaches are

unique school leaders who are catalyst for change because they do not have formal

authority over teachers (Bean & Ippolito, 2016).

Challenges of Instructional Coaching

Artigliere and Baecher (2016) discussed how the instructional coaching roles are

inconsistent and need to be researched further in order to support instructional coaches

more effectively. Coaches often lose sight of their purpose due to the amount of

additional duties they are asked to perform outside of their coaching responsibilities

(Anderson & Wallin, 2018). Heineke and Polnick (2013) found coaches served a myriad

of roles including administrative tasks, administering tests, analyzing data, teaching

students, and serving as a teacher resource. These inconsistent roles and expectations

challenge the instructional coach’s ability to increase teacher effectiveness (Aguilar,

2013). Heineke and Polnick (2013) explained how instructional coaches could

experience conflict when an administrator asks them to evaluate a teacher’s performance,

because the coach’s dynamic with the teacher changes from a supporter to an evaluator.

Jablon et al. (2016), consultants to early childhood instructional coaches, found

instructional coaches were overwhelmed by the amount of people and programs they had

to support. The instructional coaches became stressed by the lack of time allotted to

complete their responsibilities and the need to continuously shift gears to new tasks.

Kane and Rosenquist (2018) found school level instructional coaches spent less than half

of their time working with teachers, because they were often given additional roles and

responsibilities including but not limited to being a substitute teacher, tutor, Title I

coordinator, or building assessment coordinator. Heineke and Polnick (2013) also found

that many of the responsibilities of instructional coaches would not be considered

instructional coaching.

Aguilar (2013) found most instructional coaches are chosen based on their own

teaching abilities; however, they were not clear on their roles as an instructional coach.

Research showed that the role of an instructional coach was often different than what he

or she had expected (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). Instructional coaches find their work

challenging, because they are not familiar with the content area or are not prepared to

meet the needs of their mentee teachers (Aguilar, 2013). Lowenhaupt et al. (2014)

researched three different literacy coaches in a public school district. Each literacy coach

had a different level of experience and skill sets. When the county posted the job

description of the literacy coach on the county website the following roles were listed:

• Assist in identifying successful intervention strategies with struggling

students;

• Demonstrate and model intervention strategies with struggling students for

classroom teachers;

• Model the components of the Balanced Literacy framework in classrooms for

classroom teachers;

• Provide technical support for professional learning communities in schools;

• Collect and analyze information on research-proven practices in Literacy;

• Submit weekly log to Literacy Specialist;

• Deliver school-based professional development as requested;

• Reinforce strategies that support Family Literacy; and

• Provide direct and ongoing support to teachers. (Lowenhaupt et al., 2014, p.

744)

The roles of each coach were dependent on what the principal felt was the

school’s greatest need at that time. One instructional coach served as a resource for

helping teachers differentiate the instruction; whereas, another instructional coach

implemented the Accelerated Reading Program within the school and supervised the

reading program’s success. In the conclusion of the study, the researchers found that the

literacy coaches had numerous roles that were completely unrelated to their work as a

literacy coach (Lowenhaupt et al., 2014).

Coaches need a structured schedule throughout the day to help eliminate the risks

of the coach taking on too many roles and responsibilities, because those additional roles

can weaken their effectiveness as a coach (Killion & Harrison, 2017). Kane and

Rosenquist (2018) substantiated that it is difficult for instructional coaches to reach

maximum capacity in improving student achievement when their time is limited because

of miscellaneous tasks that rob the instructional coach’s time of working with students.

While the definition of instructional coaching has been inconsistent, Wolpert-Gawron

(2016) explained how having inconsistent definitions on the roles for instructional

coaches gives the instructional coach more flexibility in the work they do to support

teachers and improve overall teacher performance. However, the Hanover Research

Report (2015) emphasized the importance of instructional coaches having clearly

established non-evaluative roles to foster more effective and positive relationships

between the teacher and instructional coach. The Hanover Report was created to support

and train instructional coaches. This report was determined from interviews of

instructional coaches conducted by a state educational agency and from available

literature on instructional coaching.

Teacher Effectiveness

Harvard University Center for Education Policy Research (2019) concluded that

teacher quality was the single most important factor for increasing student performance.

Goldhaber (2016) noted how the Coleman study, which concluded that teacher quality

was essential to helping students make academic gains, which is evident today. Teacher

quality matters because it significantly influences student achievement (Goldhaber,

2016).

Loeb, Soland, and Fox (2014) found that effective teachers are effective regardless

of the students they teach. Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2014) reported that students

taught by an effective teacher are more likely to attend college, live in better areas, save

for retirement, and make more lifetime income than students taught by ineffective

teachers. Researchers and practitioners have varying definitions of what constitutes an

effective teacher.

Jensen (2016) explained how effective teaching is embedded in the four different

mindsets that can prepare the teacher for success. He further explained how the relational

mindset builds relationships between the teacher and their students, the achievement

mindset improves a student’s cognitive processing, the rich classroom climate mindset

creates a culture of goal-setting and resilience, and the engagement mindset established a

commitment to personalize learning for each student. However, Danielson’s Framework

for Teaching (1996) rated teacher effectiveness according to four areas: (a) planning and

preparation, (b) classroom environment, (c) instruction, and (d) professional

responsibility. Strong (2018) provided another perspective on effective teaching through

the Framework for Effective Teaching. This framework contains a “performance

portrait” of the jobs and responsibilities of effective teachers. The Framework for

Effective Teaching was comprised of six components a) professional knowledge, b)

instructional planning, c) instructional delivery, d) assessment, e) learning environment,

and f) professionalism. Strong further defined each of the framework components into

subdomains, and the subdomains were also decomposed into indicators.

Instructional coaches provide professional learning tailored to teachers’ strengths

and weaknesses to help improve their effectiveness (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Hill (2017)

explained schools must provide current and effective curriculum materials and ample

amounts of support for teachers to help them become more effective in their practice.

Darling-Hammond (2013) explained how an effective evaluation system helps teachers

create goals for areas of improvement and ultimately become more effective in their

practice.

Ittner, Helman, Burns, and McComas (2015) explained how effective teaching can

be supported by strong systems including evidence-based tools to improve teaching

practice and ongoing support to implement new strategies. Anderson and Wallin (2018)

explained how effective teachers were asked to become instructional coaches with the

purpose of coaching other teachers to become more effective. Instructional coaches then

become a central strategy to help build teacher capacity and improve student achievement

(Huguet et al., 2014). On average, teachers that receive higher evaluation ratings also

produce higher student performance (Garrett & Steinberg, 2015).

Summary and Conclusions

Federal law mandates that states implement a teacher evaluation system and

professional development that improve teacher performance and student outcomes (Every

Student Succeeds Act, 2015). Many schools are utilizing instructional coaches to provide

job-embedded professional development strengthening teacher effectiveness (Knight,

2018). Due to the inconsistencies of instructional coaches’ roles, some instructional

coaches experience stress (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016). Instructional coaches strive to

refine and enhance a teacher’s overall performance and effectiveness (Bowman, 2017).

Effective teaching is the greatest in-school factor that improves student achievement

(Strong, 2018).

In this chapter, I reviewed the literature on instructional coaching, instructional

coaching roles, challenges of instructional coaching, and teacher effectiveness. There is a

gap in practice and in the literature of the roles of instructional coaches and how their

roles improve teacher effectiveness. In this study, I explored elementary-level

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher

effectiveness. In Chapter 3, I explain the specific details of the research design and

methodology. The instrumentation and procedures for participant recruitment are

described in length along with a thorough explanation on how the researcher created an

ethically sound and trustworthy study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this study was to explore elementary-level Title I instructional

coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness.

This section provides explanations on how the research design was determined and

describes the role of the researcher. I discuss the setting, population, and participant

selection to help provide a clear understanding on the methodology. The type of coding

and analysis are also shared. Trustworthiness is a vital component to this study;

therefore, all strategies to ensure credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability are explained. Finally, the ethical procedures used throughout the study

are described.

Research Design and Rationale

A basic qualitative study was most appropriate for this study due to the purpose of

examining the participants’ perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Basic qualitative

research supports gaining the perspectives of a person’s experiences, how they created the

perspectives of their world, and the meanings they created for their experiences (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In a basic qualitative study, data are collected

through interviews, observations, or document analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For

this study, a basic qualitative design was appropriate due to the data collection being

interviews. The interviews addressed the problem statement and research questions. A

quantitative research method would not have been appropriate for this study because it

would not have allowed me to explore the perspectives of instructional coaches.

Narrative and ethnography research could be used to understand perspectives of

individuals; however, narrative research is focused on individual stories and on the setting

within the context of the participant’s culture (Creswell, 2018), which was not the focus

of my study. The conceptual framework of organizational role theory supported the

research questions because the research questions required the instructional coaches to

reflect on their roles.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

Role of the Researcher

My role in this study was to explore elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’

perspectives of their roles and how these roles improve teacher effectiveness. I served as

an observer. Presently, I serve as an administrator for two elementary schools, because

my district employs one assistant principal per two schools. The first school I work in is

identified as a Title I school due to the number of students receiving free and reduced

lunch. This school has employed an instructional coach for the past 5 years using Title I

funds. The second school I work in is not a Title I school and does not have an

instructional coach due to the lack of funds. Before becoming an administrator, I served

as an instructional coach for one year, during which I served as professional development

facilitator, teacher mentor, substitute teacher, and I analyzed data.

As the researcher, I realized there were biases that formed through my experience

as an instructional coach and consciously I was committed to disregard my personal

experiences in order to fully examine and understand the position of the participants. As

a former instructional coach, I realized confirmation bias could occur. I challenged my

beliefs to ensure that preconceived ideas did not become part of the research. To address

research bias, I documented ideas in a research journal and used member checking. I did

not have a personal relationship with any of the participants and never served as the

assistant principal for any of the participants.

All of the participants worked in the same school district where I was employed;

however, none of the participants worked in my school. I did not serve as a supervisor

for any of the participants. I was familiar with some of the participants; however, the

familiarity was only from interacting during county training events. All the participants

volunteered for the study and were not given an incentive to participate.

Methodology

Through my study, I explored elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives

on their roles and how these roles improved teacher effectiveness. Instructional coaches

helped teachers foster a deeper understanding of teaching and learning (Ittner et al.,

2015). The roles of instructional coaches include other responsibilities; however, the

main purpose of an instructional coach is to improve teacher performance and student

achievement (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). I conducted a basic qualitative study to gain

insight into the roles of instructional coaches and their perceived roles that increase

teacher effectiveness. Each school’s instructional coach was interviewed in a

semistructured interview. All data were coded with open and axial codes. Braun et al.’s

(2019) thematic analysis framework guided the data analysis process.

Participant Selection

The participants in this basic qualitative study included seven elementary

instructional coaches. Creswell (2018) suggested basic qualitative studies have at least

five to 25 participants. Each instructional coach worked at a different elementary school

within the same school district. I used convenience sampling to select participants from

Title I schools in a specific county. Convenience sampling, also known as available

sampling, is based on a researcher selecting a specific sample due to the participants who

were conveniently available to participate in order to gain insight on a particular

phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

The criteria for choosing the participants were as follows: (a) being employed full-

time as an elementary instructional coach at their school and (b) having had at least 3

years of teaching experience prior to becoming an instructional coach. To determine

whether each instructional coach met these requirements, I emailed each instructional

coach asking if they were currently employed full time and had at least 3 years of

teaching experience. When the instructional coaches confirmed that they met the criteria,

I asked if they would like to participate in the study. The email address was located on

the school’s website. Instructional coaches who met these two criteria were invited to

participate in the study and were sent the consent form.

All the instructional coaches within the school district were invited to participate

in my study. After receiving Walden’s Instructional Review Board (IRB) approval and

approval from the school district, I emailed the seven school principals a letter about the

study and asked them to provide the email address for their instructional coach. I emailed

each instructional coach the two criteria questions. If they qualified, each instructional

coach was emailed an invitation to participate in the study. After receiving consent from

each participant, I scheduled an interview. The interview protocol aligned with the

research questions (Ravitch & Carl, 2016) and was reviewed by the instructional coaches’

supervisor. I used the research journal to document whether there were any issues with

the questions or sequencing of questions (see Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Instrumentation, Procedures for Recruitment, and Data Collection

Before selecting participants, I received approval from Walden University’s IRB

(11-15-19-0592303). The school district superintendent was sent an email about the

study, requesting for the research to take place in the school district, and I received

permission to conduct the study at various schools. To recruit participants, I determined

which schools had an instructional coach employed. After identifying nine schools that

had an instructional coach listed on their staff directory website, I contacted the principals

of these schools by email to receive permission to conduct the interview with the

instructional coach. Principals who agreed replied to the email with the words, “I

consent.” The principal also provided the name and email of the instructional coach. If

the principals did not respond, I was prepared to send more emails. The principal’s email

was listed on the school website. After the principal sent me the instructional coach’s

email address via email, I contacted the instructional coach through email with a letter of

invitation to secure the coach’s participation. Along with the letter of invitation, the

instructional coach received a consent form stating that participants may withdraw from

the study at any time without penalty. The participants were encouraged to email a

response within a week. If they did not respond, I sent them a follow-up email. Once the

participant agreed to participate in the study, an email was sent to determine a time for the

interview.

The interviews took place in a location of the participant’s choosing. Since the

interview questions presented minimal risks, the participants could choose to have the

interview at their school, a public location, or in a private meeting room. However, the

location could not take place in anyone’s home. Before each interview, the participants

were given a consent form to ensure that they understood their rights as a research

participant. The participant also received the interview protocol (see Appendix A) with

example interview questions. Before the interview began, I tested the recording device to

ensure it was working. I also used the voice recording application on my iPhone as a

back-up recording for the interviews.

Each participant was interviewed in a semistructured interview with open-ended

questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained how interviews are often used in

qualitative studies to understand a phenomenon. The semistructured interviews were

guided by the research questions, but the questions would not be exact in their wording

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview questions were aligned to the research

questions to determine the perspectives of the roles of instructional coaches.

The interview started with a brief overview of the study’s purpose and research

questions. The participant was also reminded of the right to withdraw from the study at

any time. The participant was asked a few background questions and then the interview

questions began. I took notes in a research journal during and after the interview. Doing

so helped create an ongoing and structured record of reflections, questions, and ideas

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). If I needed clarification or further explanation on a response to

an interview question, I used probes during the interview when necessary. To ensure the

participant’s responses were transcribed accurately, I recorded the interviews using a

recording device and a back-up recording device through an IPhone. The most common

method of recording interview data is to audio record the conversations (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016).

I transcribed the audio recordings using Microsoft Word and then uploaded the

transcript into the NVivo software, within 24 hours, to provide a verbatim transcription of

each interview. At the end of the study, participants were emailed a two-page summary of

the study’s results to check if their data was accurate. I emailed the instructional coaches

to determine a time to conduct an exit interview by phone. The one-on-one exit interview

lasted approximately 30 minutes. During the exit interview the participant and

I discussed the final results.

Data Analysis Plan

Data analysis was centered on making sense of the data found within the study

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The first step of data analysis was to transcribe each

interview using the NVivo data software. I transcribed the audio files within 24 hours of

the interview. I used thematic analysis to analyze the data based on the six-phase process

by Braun et al. (2019). The steps include (a) becoming familiar with the data by reading

and then rereading the transcripts, (b) determine codes by reducing the data into smaller

chunks called codes, (c) generating themes; (d) reviewing themes; and (e) defining

themes.

To become familiar with the data, each interview and accompanying notes in the

research journal was read at least two times. The goal of this phase was to become

intimately familiar with the text by reading and re-reading the data (Braun et al., 2019).

The data were not coded yet; therefore, notes were more casual than strategic. The

research journal noted reflections, questions, and ideas. The second phase of determining

codes by reducing the data into smaller chunks was a systematic approach. Information

that was potentially relevant to the research questions was given a code. Saldana (2016)

explained how coding using words or phrases to apply a specific or symbolic meaning to

a comment or response. I assigned open and axial codes appropriately.

As the researcher, I was open to the findings within the text; therefore, the coding

was in the form of open coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Saldana (2016) explained

how open coding was the process of breaking down data into parts or codes (Saldana,

2016). Codes were not necessarily given to each line of the transcripts (Braun et al.,

2019). Significant information was tagged and included in a master-coding list.

After the initial coding process, axial coding took place. Axial coding is a process

of looking for relationships between the open codes (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Axial

coding was used to compare and classify the open codes into categories based on the

relationship of the open codes (Charmaz, 2017).

The third phase was generating themes by finding a patterned response. I

searched for patterns among the axial categories. In the fourth stage, I reviewed the

potential themes and asked myself the following questions provided by Braun et al.

(2019):

1. Is this a theme (it could be just a code)?

2. If this is a theme, what is the quality of this theme (does it tell me something

useful about the data set and my research questions)?

3. What are the boundaries of this theme (what does it include or exclude)?

4. Are there enough (meaningful) data to support this theme?

5. Are the data too diverse and wide ranging (does the theme lack coherence)?

(p.65)

In the fifth phase, I named the theme, summarized the theme, and provided specific

examples. In the final phase of data analysis, I provided a description of the findings to

answer the research questions that were aligned to the framework and related to literature

(Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The findings and themes were presented for each research question. Each

research question was grounded in the participant’s perspective of their roles of

instructional coaching. The open-ended interview questions and probing questions

allowed for an in-depth conversation on the instructional coaches’ perspectives on their

roles. Through the interview, each instructional coach had the opportunity to discuss the

roles they performed and any conflict they experienced due to their roles. Finally,

instructional coaches discussed their perspectives on the roles that improved teacher

effectiveness.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Korstjens and Moser (2018) explained how qualitative researchers must use

specific criteria to determine if the findings of the research can be trusted. Lincoln and

Guba (1985) explained the five criteria used to determine trustworthiness in qualitative

research: (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, (d) confirmability, and (e)

reflexivity. To ensure trustworthiness in my research, I explained the criteria used to

establish trustworthiness.

Credibility

Credibility established the truthfulness in the research findings (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). In qualitative research, credibility was the counterpart of validity in quantitative

research (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). To establish credibility and dependability within the

interview data, I used member checking. Member checking was used to help ensure

participants’ meanings were accurately understood by the researcher and without bias

from the researcher (Maxwell, 2013). After the data were analyzed, each participant was

sent a two-page summary of the findings and was asked to email any questions or

concerns they had with the accuracy of their data within one week. After a week, I did

not receive any emails about the findings; therefore, I called each participant. All of the

participants agreed with the accuracy of their data and did not have any questions or

concerns on the findings.

Transferability

Transferability was more difficult to accomplish within qualitative research;

however, the use of thick description helped the results to “transfer” to another study

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thick description refers to a deep and detailed account of the

setting and research (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). In my study, I identified and explained

research questions to help make the participants’ perspectives meaningful for the reader

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I described the participants and the setting in detail to help the

reader transfer the data (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Each theme

included excerpts from the transcripts to provide support.

Dependability

Dependability ensured the consistency of the data over time (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). The use of member checking also strengthened the dependability of my research

by allowing the participants to review a summary of the results and provide feedback for

accuracy of their data (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained,

“An audit trail in a qualitative study describes in detail how data were collected, how

categories were derived, and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry” (p.252).

To maintain an audit, I kept a research journal. The journal included my reflections,

decisions, questions, and provided a detailed account of how the study was conducted

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Confirmability

Confirmability ensured data were not biased and could be confirmed by other

researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To establish confirmability, all biases or

assumptions of the researcher were clearly stated in the study to provide a transparent

researching process that helped the reader understand how the researcher came to certain

conclusions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My assumptions were clearly stated in the

research to safeguard the confirmability of the research. An audit trail was also used to

provide confirmability.

Ethical Procedures

Walden University’s IRB process ensured that my research was in compliance

with the ethical and legal protocols of the university. To safeguard the ethical protocols

in my research, I completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Program.

No research was conducted prior to receiving approval from the Walden University’s

Instructional Review Board. Each participant was given the informed consent form to

remind them of the study’s purpose and their rights as a research participant. I explained

that they could refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without penalty. The

participants were also informed that the study would not cause physical or physiological

risks. None of the participants worked in the same school as the researcher, which

eliminated the conflict of interest of conducting research with colleagues or friends

(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015).

The one-on-one interview setting was warm and inviting. I started the interview

by reviewing the research protocol. By doing so, the participant gained a better

understanding of what would take place during the duration of the interview. During the

face-to-face interviews, I remained objective to the responses provided by each

participant. Each participant was treated with respect and ensured confidentiality. To

help ensure confidentiality, each participant was given a number. The numbers were used

in place of their names to ensure their identity remained confidential. No participant or

school identity was shared. The transcripts were saved in NVivo and printed. All printed

documents were kept in a locked file cabinet. I am the only person with a key to the file

cabinet. All data would be kept secure for five years upon completion of the study, and

all printed transcripts will be shredded in that same time frame. Each participant was

given ample time to answer questions or take breaks if needed. All participants and

schools remained confidential.

Summary

In this section, I reviewed the study’s research design and methodology to explore

elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles

improve teacher effectiveness. The basic qualitative approach was used to research the

problem. Thematic analysis, using open and axial coding strategies, was used to analyze

interview data. I explained how participants were recruited and selected, how data were

collected, and how data were analyzed. Chapter 3 contained an explanation of how I

ensured trustworthiness and implemented ethical procedures. The study took place in

seven Title I elementary schools where each instructional coach was interviewed to

determine their perspectives on the roles of instructional coaches. Careful consideration

was taken to ensure the study was credible and dependable. Other ethical procedures

were stated to safeguard the safety and confidentiality of the participants. Chapter 4

provides the results of the study. The setting and data collection are described

thoroughly. All data analysis and results are reported and presented to support and

address the research questions. In Chapter 5, all key findings are summarized and

recommendations for further research are suggested.

Chapter 4: Reflections and Conclusions

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore elementary-level Title I

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improve teacher

effectiveness. According to Amyett (2019), instructional coaches support schools by

providing quality professional development opportunities for teachers. However, the role

of the instructional coach is often not consistent, and the direction provided by the

administrator varies (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). To address the gap in practice found in

research and literature on instructional coaches’ roles, I investigated instructional

coaches’ perspectives on their roles using the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

In Chapter 4, I discuss the findings from the data analysis. The study’s setting,

participants, and data collection process are explained in detail.

Setting

The study took place in a southern state with seven Title I instructional coaches.

Each interview took place at the participant’s school or a local coffee shop. I sent

invitation emails to nine instructional coaches. Seven agreed to participate, but two

declined. One instructional coach shared that she was too overwhelmed by her work

schedule to participate in the study. Another instructional coach did not reply to the

invitation initially and later shared that the Christmas season was too busy for her to

remember to reply. The seven instructional coaches who agreed to participate in the

study were sent the consent form. Each participant replied to the email with the words, “I

consent.” Interview locations and times were communicated through email.

Demographics

A total of seven instructional coaches agreed to participate in the research study.

Demographic information is displayed in Table 1. The participants’ teaching experience

before becoming an instructional coach ranged from 9 years to 23 years. The years of

experience of being an instructional coach ranged from 1 year to 9 years. All participants

had at least one educational endorsement; however, only five participants had the

coaching endorsement. All of the instructional coaches were female, and all of them

worked in Title I schools in the same school district.

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Participant

number

Highest degree

Educational

endorsements

Years teaching

Years as

instructional

coach

Specialist

degree

Tier 1 leadership

endorsement,

Coaching

endorsement

15 years

1 year

Specialist

degree

Science

endorsement,

STEM

endorsement

10 years

1 year

Specialist

degree

Reading

endorsement,

Coaching

endorsement,

ESL

endorsement

10 years

9 years

Specialist

degree

Coaching

endorsement

21 years

8 years

Master’s degree

Coaching

endorsement,

Support

specialist

endorsement

9 years

1 year

Master’s degree

Coaching

endorsement,

Gifted

endorsement,

Tier I leadership

endorsement

23 years

2 years

Specialist

degree

Mathematics

endorsement

26 years

2 years

Data Collection

A total of seven elementary-level instructional coaches from the same school

district participated in one face-to-face, semistructured interviews with open-ended

questions. The interviews lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. The data collection

process took approximately three weeks. I recorded each interview using a hand-held

audio recorder. As a back-up, I also used the Voice Memo App on my IPhone to record

each interview. The interviews started with a review of the study’s purpose and research

questions. I reminded the participants that if they wanted to stop the interview at any

time, they were permitted to do so. The participants were asked background questions

and then questions that went along with the research questions (see Appendix A). I used

follow-up prompts to help the participants give more descriptive responses (see Appendix

A). Research notes were kept in a research journal during and after the interview. At the

conclusion of the interview, I thanked the participants for their time and explained that I

would send a two-page summary of the results at the end of the study for the purpose of

them reviewing the accuracy of their data and emailing any questions or concerns they

may have had with the findings.

I transcribed the audio recordings using Microsoft Word and uploaded them into

the NVivo platform. The NVivo software program helped organize all the data. A printed

copy of each transcript was kept in a locked filing cabinet. The data collection process

took a little longer than anticipated due to the scheduling conflicts of the

Christmas holidays.

Data Analysis

After transcribing each interview in Microsoft Word and uploading the document

into NVivo, I followed the five-step thematic analysis process of Braun et al. (2019). The

steps include (a) becoming familiar with the data by reading and rereading the transcripts,

(b) determining codes by reducing the data into smaller chunks called codes (c)

generating themes, (d) reviewing themes, and (e) defining themes.

Step 1: Familiarity With Data

First, each transcript and all accompanying notes in the research journal were read

at least two times. I actively read the transcripts and research journal notes to understand

the data (see Braun et al., 2019). While reading the interview transcripts, I wrote notes in

the margins about key concepts or phrases that were relevant to instructional coaches’

perceived roles and instructional coaching roles that improve teacher effectiveness. This

step helped me become familiar with the data and determine significant parts related to

the research questions.

Step 2: Determine Codes

The second step included determining codes from the data by reducing the data

into smaller chunks (see Braun et al., 2019). While reading the transcripts for the third

time, I applied open coding to the raw data by highlighting repeated words or phrases and

assigning a code word or phrase for the highlighted text. The code word or phrase was

then circled to help differentiate it from the margin notes written earlier in the data

analysis process. Then I created a list of the codes created within the text.

Table 2

Open Coding Sample for Instructional Coaches

Code

Participant

Excerpt

Data coach

Participant 4

Participant 6

We look at results to see if

it worked.

If students are improving,

that is due to the teacher

becoming better.

Relationship builder

Participant 1

Participant 4

I try to help them feel good

about what they’re doing...

I work alongside my

teachers so they can

become better.

Learning facilitator

Participant 7

Participant 3

Help them find the unit

guides.

We have labs where they

practice a technique...

Modeling lessons

Participant 6

Participant 1

I model for them...

Modeling and observing

lessons is primary...

Feedback provider

Participant 2

Participant 7

Watch them teach and

giving feedback.

Give her feedback on what

she had done well and an

area where she can

improve.

Step 3: Generating Themes

I searched for a relationship among the open codes. When I found open codes that

were similar, I highlighted the open codes with the same color to create a new category.

Each new category was given a code name. Four axial codes were found within the open

codes. I used the NVivo platform to organize and store the data. The axial codes were

inputted into the NVivo platform as nodes. Each node included the excerpt from the

transcript, which helped me organize the data from the seven interview transcripts. I

returned to the axial categories to search for patterns within the categories. I found two

main patterns within the axial categories: (a) instructional coaches support teachers, and

(b) instructional coaches have undefined roles. Table 3 identifies the four axial categories

with the patterns that emerged.

Table 3

Axial Coding Sample for Instructional Coaching Roles

Category

Excerpt

Patterns

Learning facilitator

Work with grade levels

Provides information and

resources

Classroom supporter

Co-teaching

Modeling, observes

lessons, and provides

feedback.

Relationship builder

Teacher is comfortable

making a mistake

Builds a trusting

relationship

Data coach

Analyze data

Collects and analyzes data

to create lessons.

To move the patterns into themes, I analyzed the patterns to develop the theme.

Two themes emerged: (a) instructional coaches’ main role is as a teacher supporter and

(b) instructional coaches have undefined and inconsistent roles.

Step 4: Review Themes

During this step, the themes were analyzed to determine whether they should be

collapsed into one theme. I used the thematic analysis questions provided by Braun et al.

(see 2019) to further analyze the themes:

• Is this a theme (it could be just a code)?

• If this is a theme, what is the quality of this theme (does it tell me something

useful about the data set and my research questions)?

• What are the boundaries of this theme (what does it include or exclude)?

• Are there enough (meaningful) data to support this theme?

• Are the data too diverse and wide ranging (does the theme lack coherence)?

(p. 65)

Through this phase, I determined that the themes had enough support and were not too

diverse or wide ranging.

Step 5: Defining Themes

The two themes that emerged from the data analysis were (a) instructional

coaches’ main role is as a teacher supporter (b) instructional coaches have undefined and

inconsistent roles. After careful analysis of the data, I was able to answer the following

two research questions:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

All the participants referenced how they supported the teacher by being a learning

facilitator inside the classroom and during professional learning workshops or

collaborative planning times. The participants also mentioned how they guided teachers

through the data analysis process. All participants also mentioned the importance of

building relationships with teachers to create a trusting working relationship. There was

one discrepant case where one of the participants did not find her role as an instructional

coach as undefined. She explained how she was mentored by the previous instructional

coach who was promoted, within the same school, to the assistant principal position.

Therefore, she felt her role as an instructional coach was consistent and clearly defined.

Results

The findings of this study were organized by themes that emerged from the seven

face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The data collected and analyzed from the

interviews answered the two research questions and gave insight into future

recommendations. Two themes emerged (a) instructional coaches believe their main role

is a teacher supporter and (b) instructional coaches have undefined and inconsistent roles.

Theme 1: Instructional coaches’ main role is a teacher supporter

The first theme answered the two research questions:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

All of the participants expressed how they believe their role was to provide support to

teachers. The participants shared how their role included four main activities: (a)

learning facilitator, (b) classroom supporter, (c) relationship builder, and (d) data coach.

These four activities will be explained in detail as subtopics. The participants also

discussed how the four activities improved teacher effectiveness. Examples of how the

activities improved teacher effectiveness were explained in detail within each of the four

subtopics.

Learning facilitator. The participants discussed how as a learning facilitator they

provided support for teachers by organizing and facilitating learning opportunities. The

learning opportunities helped to improve teacher instruction through professional

development faculty meetings, grade level labs, or grade level workshops. The

participants discussed how the professional learning faculty meetings were always

tailored towards helping teachers become more effective in their practice. Participant 1

and 3 explained how they worked with grade levels to provide professional development

on topics that everyone needed. The teachers took the skills learned through the

professional development meeting and applied them to their teaching which enhanced

their instruction. Participant 6 discussed how she provided professional development

within the reading and writing instruction because it was a school-wide focus. She

modeled for teachers how to teach within the reading and writing workshop and taught

teachers how to create lessons to improve student vocabulary.

Participant 5 provided grade level professional learning on creating effective

lesson plans. The instructional coach helped the teachers break down the assessment data

to create small group lesson plans. These lesson plans helped the teacher provide

interventions for struggling students. Participant 4 stated how the teachers can see if their

teaching is improving by monitoring student performance. Participant 2 explained how

teachers needed time to learn how to create differentiated lesson plans based on student

needs; therefore, she incorporated this learning in her professional development.

Participant 1 noted how she worked with grade levels to improve their phonics

instruction through a new school-wide curriculum. This professional learning was

needed because the teachers were not familiar with teaching phonics in this new way.

As a learning facilitator, the participants provided resources for teachers.

Participant 4 stated how she researched materials based on the teacher’s needs. She

explained, “If the teacher is in a narrative writing unit, I work hard to provide them with

the exemplars or charts they need.” Participants 1, 3, and 5 all shared how they use books

to help support teachers through the reading and writing curriculum. Participant 7

explained how she sits with teachers to go through the online resources provided by the

county. Providing learning opportunities and learning resources help teachers learn new

strategies or techniques for effective teaching.

Classroom supporter. The participants explained how they work with teachers

in a one-on-one setting to help provide support that is based on the teacher’s individual

needs. Participant 4 shared how she meets with teachers first to discuss instructional

areas they would like to focus on during their coaching cycle. These focus areas would

then be changed into specific instructional goals. The participants stated how they

improved teacher performance by observing a teacher in the classroom and providing

feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses. Participants 1,3, 4 and 5 shared the

importance of providing feedback in the moment. Participant 3 mentioned how she

whispered suggestions in the teacher’s ear while the teacher was teaching a small group.

She explained how this immediate feedback allowed the teacher to make prompt

adjustments, which improved her overall effectiveness. Participant 4 also explained how

she found co-teaching with the teacher helped provide more structured support for the

teacher. Participant 4 claimed how shared responsibility allows the teacher to be more

willing to take risks.

As a classroom supporter, the participants explained how they modeled effecting

teaching. Participant 3 explained, “I teach them and then let them try. While they teach, I

watch and then we come together and reflect on their teaching.” The participants noted

how important the modeling process was for teachers because it took professional

development to a deeper level. Participant 4 stated how teachers needed to see what good

teaching looked like with real students because seeing the teaching allowed the teacher to

take the learning into her classroom. Participant 1 shared how she modeled a phonics

lesson for a teacher. The teacher started to use the same strategies in her teaching and the

students showed noticeable improvement. The teacher was able to improve her

instruction by implementing the strategies she saw modeled by the instructional coach.

Participant 6 explained how modeling effective teaching and then providing time for

teachers to practice the strategy helped teachers improve their instruction within a

targeted area. She stated, “If you don’t know a better way to teach, you just keep doing it

the same way.”

Relationship builder. All of the participants discussed the importance of

building relationships with teachers and establishing trust. Participant 7 explained, “I let

the teachers know that I am not an administrator, I am your advocate. I think that

develops the relationship. I tell them our conversations are confidential and only for us.”

Participant 4 and 6 stated how teachers were more willing to try new strategies and make

mistakes when the instructional coach created a safe and accepting environment.

Participant 6 created a safe environment by hosting a coffee bar once a week. The coffee

bar allowed the teachers to relax and build a relationship with the instructional coach

through casual conversations. Participant 2 shared how instructional coaches must learn

about teachers on a personal level by first sharing about themselves. She explained how

each year she brought goody bags to new teachers and introduced herself. She found this

small gesture helped establish a relationship with the teachers. Participant 7 shared how

during her required lunch duty she would take time to collaborate with teachers and

create open communication with them. Participant 6 explained how building a

relationship of trust and open communication is important because teachers are more

open to ask for help from someone they believe genuinely wants to help them. While

some coaches found it easy to build relationships with teachers, others had to put forth

more effort. Participant 5 explained how she would try to create a positive relationship

with teachers; unfortunately, some teachers did not want to be coached. She explained

how teachers would ask for lessons to be modeled and observed however when the

teacher was asked to modify their teaching style, they would not comply. Participant 3

shared how some teachers did not want to work with an instructional coach because they

thought the instructional coach would share their conversations with the administration.

She had to ensure teachers understood the norms for their relationship. Participant 4

explained how building a relationship with teachers helped the instructional coach know

how to approach them. She noted how a novice teacher would be coached differently

than a veteran teacher. A novice teacher could be given suggestions on how to improve

instruction whereas a veteran teacher may need to “come to their own discoveries.”

These relationship-building strategies helped teachers work with instructional coaches

more effectively and improved their instruction.

All of the participants discussed how providing positive reinforcement to teachers

helped build the relationship. Participant 1 explained how she gave teachers

complimentary notes and shared what the teacher did well before giving constructive

feedback. Participant 3 shared how she gave teachers numerous positive comments and

then always gave the teacher something they could do to improve their teaching.

Providing positive comments first helped the teacher build confidence. Then, the teacher

was more willing to make instructional changes. Participant 1 commented: “I just feel

that I am there to touch my teachers in any way and help them improve in their practice.

Ultimately, when they improve the children benefit.” Instructional coaches building

relationships with teachers supported the framework. Relationship building was a role

that was expected by administration; therefore, the instructional coach acted on that

expectation.

Data coach. The participants stated how they supported teachers by helping them

determine professional goals and then supported the teachers through the process of

achieving their goals. Participant 6 explained how she encouraged teachers to have their

students also set personal goals. The data helped the teacher and student determine if

they were improving. For example, Participant 4 stated: “Data helps us determine where

we are and what we need to do to get better. Then we can look at the results and see if it

worked.” The instructional coaches explained how they work with teachers to look at

assessment data to determine which students needed further remediation or interventions

on specific skills. After looking at the data, the instructional coach helped the teacher

create a plan to implement the necessary remediation lessons and interventions. Then, the

instructional coach guided the teacher through the process of keeping data records to

determine if her teaching strategies were improving student performance.

Participant 1 noted how she reflects with teachers after looking at the data to determine if

their strategies helped improve her instruction. If the student data showed improvement,

then the instructional coach could assume the teacher’s effectiveness was also improving.

Participant 2 explained how data analysis was something many teachers struggled to

understand. She worked closely with teachers to model how to use data to inform

instructional decisions. Data analysis is necessary for teachers to create effective lesson

plans. Participant 3 explained how the administrators used data to determine areas where

teachers needed further support. The instructional coach was required to improve teacher

effectiveness according to specific data.

Theme 2: Instructional coaches have undefined and inconsistent roles.

The second theme answered the two research questions:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

Six of the participants explained how their roles were not clearly defined or they

described their roles to include activities that were not directly supporting teachers.

Participant 3 shared,

There was no job description for me. You pretty much do whatever the principal

asks. Sometimes I would have to fill in for an absent teacher to cover her class

and sometimes I had lunch duty. But I found myself reminding my admin of my

roles and telling them what I should be doing. They eventually came around and

would allow me to skip out on those other things.

Participant 5 explained how the school district did not provide her with duties and

responsibilities; however, the assistant principal of instruction gave her specific roles and

responsibilities. The roles given by the assistant principal served as the instructional

coach’s guidelines; however, more roles and responsibilities were added throughout the

year. In March, Participant 3, 5, and 6 had to assist with testing; therefore, their coaching

schedules were cancelled during that month. Participants 2, 5, and 7 explained how they

were responsible for other duties and responsibilities including lunch duty or serving as a

substitute teacher for classes. Participant 2 stated that she would serve in her regular

coaching roles unless she was needed as a substitute teacher or test administrator.

Participant 7 stated,

I find through talking to other instructional coaches, that our role is being defined

as we go. There is no job description. A lot of administrators don’t know how to use

their coach. I do help teachers, but I also have other responsibilities like being in charge

of our Growing Readers Program. I have to make the schedules and go to all the

trainings. That takes time from my time with teachers. Unfortunately, the lack of

consistency within the instructional coaching roles hindered some of the instructional

coaches with their ability to improve teacher effectiveness. All participants, except for

Participant 1, gave examples of having to fulfill roles that did not directly impact teacher

effectiveness. While an instructional coach was substituting a class, administering a test,

or performing lunch duty they were not able to directly impact the effectiveness of the

teacher’s instruction. In addition, the instructional coaches were not able to fulfill their

perceived role as a teacher supporter by being a learning facilitator, classroom supporter,

relationship builder, or data coach. The instructional coach’s ability to improve teacher

effectiveness was reliant on their administrator’s expected roles at that time.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

According to Ravitch and Carl, (2016), credibility must be established by the

researcher by using at least two validation strategies to ensure accuracy of data. To

ensure credibility of the research findings, I collected data through semi-structured

interviews and a review of a research journal. The research journal kept a record of my

reflections, decisions, and questions. Member checking was used to establish credibility.

At the end of the study, each participant was sent a two-page summary of the findings and

was asked to email any questions or concerns they had with the accuracy of their data

within one week. After a week, I did not receive any emails about the findings; therefore,

I called each participant. All of the participants agreed with the accuracy of their data and

did not have any questions or concerns on the findings.

Transferability

The use of thick description will help future researchers duplicate the study. The

setting and participants were thoroughly described. Each participant was asked prompts

to help them give descriptive responses. Research notes were taken during and after the

semi-structured interviews and kept in a research journal. The data collection and data

analysis process were described in detail to help provide other researchers with the

support needed to duplicate the study. Each theme included excerpts from the interviews

to support the participant’s responses.

Dependability

Member checking was used to help ensure dependability. At the end of the study,

each participant was sent a two-page summary of the findings and was asked to email any

questions or concerns they had with the accuracy of their data within one week. After a

week, I did not receive any emails about the findings; therefore, I called each participant.

All of the participants agreed with the accuracy of their data and did not have any

questions or concerns on the findings.

Thick description was used to help provide a thorough description of the setting and

participants (see Ravitch & Carl, 2016). To establish a thick description, I kept an audit

trail during and after the interviews in my research journal. The research journal helped

to keep a record of my reflections, decisions, and questions.

Confirmability

Confirmability requires that the research findings are unbiased (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016). Being objective and openly stating all biases or assumptions established

confirmability. The confirmability of the study was addressed when I shared my

experience as an instructional coach. I explained how I served as an instructional coach

for one year; however, I was mindful to record the results of the interview without

personal bias. I used audit trail to help keep a thorough record of data. I used a research

journal to record all personal reflections, decisions, and questions during and after each

interview.

Summary

Interpretation of the results of my research demonstrated that instructional coaches

do have some specific roles and those roles help improve teacher effectiveness.

Instructional coaches are able to help teachers create lessons that are tailored to student

needs. However, instructional coaches also have roles that are undefined or inconsistent.

These inconsistent roles hinder the instructional coach’s ability to improve teacher

effectiveness.

Through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, I was able to use a basic

qualitative design to seek a thorough and deep understanding of the participants’

perspectives on their roles. Results of the data were presented in this chapter. Two

themes emerged from the data analysis (a) instructional coaches’ main role is a teacher

supporter and (b) instructional coaches have undefined and inconsistent roles. These

themes allowed me to answer the two research questions:

• RQ1. What are elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level Title I instructional coaches’ perceived roles

improve teacher effectiveness?

All of the participants believed that instructional coaches have many roles. The

participants explained most of the roles they performed were in relation to supporting the

teacher. The instructional coaches were in agreement that they complete four main

activities: (a) learning facilitator, (b) classroom supporter, (c) relationship builder, and (d)

data coach. Through these four activities, instructional coaches were able to improve

teacher effectiveness. As a learning facilitator, the participants stated how they provided

professional development opportunities for teachers and resources. To support teachers

in the classroom, the participants discussed how they model effective teaching and

provide feedback. All participants discussed how building a relationship with teachers

was necessary for teacher improvement. Participant 3 explained how she worked hard to

establish trust with teachers, because she wanted the teachers to openly listen to her

suggestions. Finally, guiding teachers through data analysis is vital for teacher

improvement. Participant 1 shared how data shows if the teacher’s strategies are

improving.

Through the interviews six participants shared how their roles were undefined and

a job description was never provided. Participants also commented that they had

additional roles that did not directly support teachers. The additional roles and

inconsistent job descriptions were found with six of the seven participants. While the

instructional coaches fulfilled the additional roles, they were not able to improve teacher

effectiveness. One participant did not find her role as an instructional coach to be

undefined or inconsistent. The participant shared how the previous instructional coach

trained her.

Again, all of the participants described their goal as one to improve teacher

effectiveness. The participants explained how they supported teachers to help the

teachers improve their overall instruction. In Chapter 4, I presented the results from the

study according to the themes generated from the thematic analysis. The participants

shared their perspectives of their roles and how their roles improved teacher

effectiveness. In Chapter 5, the interpretation of the findings, limitations,

recommendations, implications, and conclusions are addressed.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore elementary-level Title I

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how these roles improve teacher

effectiveness. A qualitative design allowed me to gain an in-depth understanding of the

participants’ experiences and perspectives through the face-to-face semi-structured

interviews (see Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

This study was relevant and necessary because few researchers had specifically

researched the roles of instructional coaches as perceived by instructional coaches. The

purpose of this study was to fill the gap in practice found in the literature on instructional

coaches’ roles (see Pletcher et al., 2019). The research questions that guided my research

were the following:

• RQ1: What are elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives of their

roles?

• RQ2: How do elementary-level instructional coaches’ perceived roles improve

teacher effectiveness?

Overall, the participants shared the perspectives of their roles. The participants

commented that their main role is as a teacher supporter. The participants stated how

they were able to support teachers through four activities: (a) learning facilitator, (b)

classroom supporter, (c) relationship builder, and (d) data coach. As a learning facilitator,

the instructional coach provided professional learning during faculty meetings, grade

level meetings, or in a one-on-one setting. All of the professional learning was created to

help improve the teacher’s overall effectiveness. In addition, the instructional coach

provided resources for the teachers based on the teacher’s instructional needs. As a

classroom supporter, the instructional coach provided examples of exemplary teaching

while also providing feedback. All of the participants commented on the importance of

building a relationship with teachers and gave examples of how they established a

trusting relationship. The participants also discussed being a data coach and helping

teachers use data to inform their instructional decisions. Finally, the roles participants

identified for an instructional coach included some noninstructional roles that took the

instructional coaches away from directly supporting teachers. These roles included

substituting for classes or serving as a testing administrator.

Interpretation of the Findings

My interpretations of the findings for this basic qualitative study were based on

seven face-to-face semistructured interviews, the literature reviewed in Chapter 2, and the

conceptual framework of organizational role theory. The outcomes of this study were

determined by interpretations in the context of the literature and in the context of

organizational role theory, the conceptual framework examined in Chapter 2.

Instructional Coaching

Instructional coaches partnered with teachers to help teachers improve instruction

and help students become more successful (Knight, 2018). The participants shared how

they served as teacher supporters. As a teacher supporter they helped teachers by

modeling lessons or having another teacher model a specific strategy. Modeling is a

process that allowed the teacher to see a visual or expectation on how to implement a

specific strategy (see Killion & Harrison, 2017). The participants also commented on

how they supported teachers by observing the teachers in the classroom and then

providing feedback. Instructional coaches gave nonevaluative feedback and helped

teachers reflect on their goals (see Eisenberg et al., 2017). Effective coaching started

with coaches helping teachers make decisions, solve problems, and achieve personal

goals (see Bean & Ippolito, 2016). The participants confirmed this idea and shared how

teachers needed support with using data to help teachers set professional goals to help

them improve in a specific area.

The participants stated that, as a teacher supporter, they took time to build a

relationship with their teachers. They gave multiple examples on how they created a

nonjudgmental environment and provided positive reinforcement to build confidence.

Coaches must have strong interpersonal skills to help them effectively communicate their

thoughts and expectations with teachers (White et al., 2015). The participants

commented how they believed building a relationship was imperative to help support

teachers. They built trust with teachers by establishing trust and confidentiality. Trust

was a critical characteristic for an instructional coach to possess (see Knight, 2018). The

participants also mentioned how they supported teachers by providing information and

resources. Instructional coaches collaborated with teachers and provided professional

learning opportunities for teachers by teaching the content or organizing for someone else

to teach the content (see Killion & Harrison, 2017). The participants gave examples on

how they collaborated with teachers one-to-one or how they planned whole group

professional learning for grade levels. Three of the participants shared how they led labs

where teachers practiced a particular teaching strategy with students and then reflected on

the process after the lesson. Finally, as a teacher supporter, the participants commented

on their work with guiding teachers through data analysis. Guiding teachers to make

decisions based on data is a necessary role of an instructional coach (Anderson & Wallin,

2018). The participants explained how they taught teachers how to use data to improve

instruction. Providing focused feedback helped teachers understand how they can

improve their instruction (see Stefaniak, 2017).

The study confirmed the idea that the roles of instructional coaches are undefined

(see Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). Six of the participants shared how they did not have a

job description outlining their roles and responsibilities. Two participants explained how

they went to their administrators asking for more guidance on their roles, and the

administrator instructed the instructional coach of their expectations. Another participant

commented that she had to remind her administrator of her roles according to the roles

presented to her from the coaching endorsement she completed. Another participant

explained that she believed the role of an instructional coach was still being developed by

the county. Overall, six participants shared how they did not have defined roles and had

to learn their role as they started working. The roles of an instructional coach are

inconsistent and often vary depending on the school (Artigliere & Baecher, 2016). Six

participants also shared additional roles they were responsible for that did not include

supporting teachers. These roles included being a testing administrator, substitute

teacher, and performing other required duties. The participants shared how they were not

aware of their additional duties until they were asked to complete the additional roles.

One participant explained that she believed she would be working with teachers all year

and was surprised to find out that she would not be working with teachers during the

testing months due to her additional role as a testing administrator. The undefined roles

did not keep the participants from determining their roles. Two participants asked their

administrators for their instructional coaching roles, whereas the other participants

learned their roles as they spent time with the teachers.

There was one discrepant case where a participant did not have a similar opinion

compared to the other participants on her roles. Participant 1 believed her roles were

clearly defined and consistent. The outgoing instructional coach trained her because the

outgoing instructional coach was hired to serve as the assistant principal at the same

school.

Conceptual Framework – Organizational Role Theory

Role theory is based on the idea that employees enact specific roles in order to

perform what is expected of them effectively (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For an organization

to perform effectively, the roles must be clearly communicated to the employee (Katz &

Kahn, 1978). The participants confirmed the idea that roles needed to be clearly

communicated. Some of the participants shared how they were able to perform certain

duties once the administrators clearly expressed their expectations. Organizational role

theory has four basic assumptions: (a) role-taking, (b) role-consensus, (c) rolecompliance,

and (d) role-conflict (Parker & Wickham, 2007). Role-taking assumes that the employee

will accept the role once the employer shares the role with them. Roleconsensus assumes

that there is a common understanding of the roles between the employer and the

employee. Role-compliance assumes that the employee will adhere to the clear roles

given by the employer. Role-conflict assumes conflict will occur when one role conflicts

with another role (Parker & Wickham, 2007).

In this study, I explored elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives on

their roles. Within organizational role theory, I focused on two main assumptions:

roletaking and role-compliance. The participants confirmed the assumption of role-

taking. Three participants commented on the specific roles their administrators assigned

to them and how they accepted those roles and fulfilled the roles without question. Two

participants shared how they served as a testing administrator during the testing month;

therefore, their role as an instructional coach paused. The participants did not question

the roles given to them by their administrators. However, the third assumption of

organizational role theory, role-compliance was disconfirmed. Role-compliance states

that roles were clearly defined by the employer and followed by the employee (Parker &

Wickham, 2007). The participants were not given a job description and the roles were

not clearly defined for instructional coaches. Six of the participants expressed frustration

with not clearly understanding their role as an instructional coach. The six participants

also gave examples of additional roles they had to perform that did not directly impact

teacher effectiveness.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation to trustworthiness that arose during data collection and data

analysis was brevity of the interview responses. As the researcher, I was responsible for

using follow-up and probing questions to elicit in-depth responses from the participants.

The participants’ brief responses limited the amount of data collected.

Recommendations

In this study, I explored elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives of

their roles and how their roles improve teacher effectiveness. When the study was

completed, I realized that my research leads to several other topics for future research

opportunities. I recommend a follow-up study with a different participant pool, which

would include gaining administrators’ perspectives on instructional coaches’ roles. This

study would help improve instructional coaching by bridging the gap between the

instructional coaches’ perspectives and the administrators’ perspectives on the roles of

instructional coaches.

I also recommend that instructional coaches, administrators, and central office

personnel use the findings of my study to help create a common language of the roles of

the instructional coach. The roles participants identified in my study can be used to

create a job description, which would help prepare instructional coaches for their roles as

an instructional coach. In addition, the job description should include a statement that

explains how the instructional coach may be responsible for additional duties and

responsibilities at the discretion of their principal.

Implications

This study may promote social change by creating more consistent expectations

and practices for instructional coaches, thereby improving their ability to improve teacher

effectiveness. I explored elementary-level instructional coaches’ perspectives on their

roles and how their roles improve teacher effectiveness with the expectation of promoting

social change. Improved teacher effectiveness may help create positive social change for

learners by providing more effective and successful teaching.

There are positive social change implications specific to the administrators from

the completion of this study. My research results indicated two common themes on

instructional coaches’ perspectives on their roles and how their roles improve teacher

effectiveness: (a) instructional coaches’ main role is as a teacher supporter, and (b)

instructional coaches have undefined and inconsistent roles. To maximize the

instructional coaches’ abilities, their time with teachers must be spent on improving

instruction (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). Instructional coaches have the ability to improve

teacher effectiveness (Knight, 2018). This study was significant because it allowed

instructional coaches to express their perspectives on their roles as an instructional coach.

The findings of this study may provide more insight into the roles of instructional coaches

and help instructional coaches modify their work to help teachers become more effective.

The ultimate goal of instructional coaching is to improve student performance

(Bean & Ippolito, 2016).

Conclusion

Instructional coaches help teachers achieve professional success by providing

support and guidance through the learning process (Anderson & Wallin, 2018). My study

provides new knowledge on instructional coaches’ perspectives of their roles. The data

presented in this research may provide administrators, central office personnel, and

instructional coaches a clearer consensus on the roles of instructional coaches. Having a

clear understanding on the instructional coaches’ roles could help instructional coaches

work more efficiently. Clear and consistent roles could also help instructional coaches

become more successful in improving teacher effectiveness.

Elementary-Level Instructional Coaches’ Perspectives on Roles and Teacher Effectiveness

Students also viewed