The Evolution of Peer Coaching Beverly Showers and Bruce Joyce
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1 1
The Evolution of Peer Coaching
Beverly Showers and Bruce Joyce
Re-printed from Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1996) The Evolution of Peer Coaching.
Educational Leadership, 53 (6): 12–16
Today, peer coaching study teams Our central concern has been helping
enhance staff development efforts and students benefit when their teachers
offer support for teachers implementing learn, grow, and change. In studying how
new strategies. teachers can create better learning
environments for themselves (Joyce and
Fifteen years have passed since we first
Showers, 1995), we noted with interest a
proposed peer coaching as an on-site
serendipitous by-product of the early
dimension of staff development (Joyce
peer coaching studies: Successful peer
and Showers, 1980). In the 1970s,
coaching teams developed skills in
evaluations of staff development that
collaboration and enjoyed the experience
focused on teaching strategies and
so much that they wanted to continue
curriculum revealed that as few as 10
their collegial partnerships after they
percent of the participants implemented
accomplished their initial goals. Why not
what they had learned. Rates of transfer
create permanent structures, we
were low even for those who had
wondered, that would enable teachers to
volunteered for the training.
study teaching on a continuous basis?
Well-researched curriculum and teaching
models did not find their way into general In working with this broadened view of
practice and thus could not influence peer coaching as a mechanism to
students learning environments. increase classroom implementation of
training, we evolved our present practice
In a series of studies beginning in 1980,
of organizing entire faculties into peer
we tested hypotheses related to the
coaching teams. We have been convinced
proposition that regular (weekly)
throughout that peer coaching is neither
seminars would enable teachers to
an end in itself nor by itself a school
practice and implement the content they
improvement initiative. Rather, it must
were learning. The seminars, or coaching
operate in a context of training
sessions, focused on classroom
implementation and general school
implementation and the analysis of
improvement. There is no evidence that
teaching, especially students’ responses.
simply organizing peer coaching or peer
The results were consistent: study teams will affect students’ learning
implementation rose dramatically, environments. The study of teaching and
whether experts or participants curriculum must be the focus.
conducted the sessions. Thus we
Here we examine the history of coaching,
recommended that teachers who were
describe changes in the conduct of
studying teaching and curriculum form
coaching and make recommendations for
small peer coaching groups that would
its future, including its role as a
share the learning process. In this way,
component of staff development that
staff development might directly affect
drives organizational change.
student learning.2 bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1
History of Peer Coaching
Pre-1980 1980–1987
The processes of training and We began to believe that changes in the
implementation have come under close school organization and in training
scrutiny only in the last 25 years. design could solve implementation
Beginning in the mid-1950s, national problems or ease them greatly, and that
movements to improve education assigning the blame to teachers was
focused on academic quality and social erroneous. Our understanding of how
equality. By the early l970s, educators people learn new behaviors and put
recognized that many of those efforts, them into practice has continuously
even when well-funded and approved by evolved, as a result of work by colleagues
the public, seldom led to changes. The in schools and universities and our own
lack of research on how people learn efforts with teachers and schools.
teaching strategies and how schools
When we first advanced the notion of
successfully disseminate innovations
coaching, we had just completed an
contributed to our failures. Educators
exhaustive review of literature on training
assumed that teachers could learn new
and presented our findings as a set of
strategies, return to a school, and
hypotheses about types of training likely
implement their new learning smoothly
to produce results. The training
and appropriately. The organization of
components discussed in that early work
the schools did not support the intensive
grew from what we found in the
training efforts that occurred in summer
literature: theory presentation, modeling
institutes or workshops during the year,
or demonstration, practice, structured
however. Initial diagnoses attributed the
and open-ended feedback and in-class
failure to “flaws” in the motivation, effort,
assistance with transfer.
and attitudes of the teachers rather than
to the state of the organization or the In 1980, we believed that “modeling,
design of training. practice under simulated conditions
and practice in the classroom, combined
with feedback” (Joyce and Showers 1980,
p. 384) was the most productive
training design. We hypothesized that
teachers attempting to master new
curriculum and teaching approaches
would need continued technical
assistance at the classroom level.bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1 3
For purposes of research, we Coaching helped nearly all the teachers
distinguished between the initial implement new teaching strategies.
development of a skill that would permit Equally important, teachers introduced to
a teacher to experiment with new the new models could coach one another,
teaching strategies, and the classroom provided that the teachers continued to
practice of that skill until it had become a receive periodic follow-up in training
part of the teacher’s repertoire. At that settings. Thus we recommended that
time, training designs for skill schools organise teachers into peer
development were much better coaching teams and arrange school
developed than were designs for settings so that the teachers could work
conditions that would lead to transfer. together to gain sufficient skill to affect
student learning. We had moved from the
In the early 80s, we formally investigated
‘50s and ‘60s, where the probability of
the hypothesis that coaching, following
implementation was extremely low, to a
initial training, would result in much
very simple technology that virtually
greater transfer than would training alone
reversed the odds. The coaching process
(Showers 1982, 1984) We confirmed this
was added to the training paradigm,
hypothesis. We assumed that the coach
taking into account the two levels of skill
needed to have more expertise in the
development described above.
content area, and thus paired teachers
with an outside consultant or an expert
Current Practice
peer. The literature on supervisory
practices and feedback influenced our We conducted the early studies with
thinking as we struggled to create the individual teachers or small groups within
kind of structured feedback that a school. The next stage involved faculties
appeared to facilitate skill development. that volunteered as a whole, which
required collaborating with staffs to
Results of our early studies showed that
determine their students’ most pressing
teachers who had a coaching
needs, selecting appropriate content,
relationship – that is, who shared aspects
helping them design training and
of teaching, planned together, and
assessing the impact on students.
pooled their experiences – practiced new
Increasingly we have found that attention
skills and strategies more frequently and
to the social organization is extremely
applied them more appropriately than
important. We now ask entire faculties to
did their counterparts who worked alone
decide whether they want the school site
to expand their repertoires. Members of
to work with us, and we discuss at length
peer-coaching groups exhibited greater
exactly how we might work together.
long-term retention of new strategies and
more appropriate use of new teaching
models over time (Baker and Showers,
1984).4 bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1
Principles of Peer Coaching
Numerous staff development practices Following are our principles of peer
are called “coaching”. These include coaching.
“technical coaching”, collegial coaching,
1
“challenge coaching”, team coaching,
“cognitive coaching”, and uses of “peer When we work with entire faculties all
coaching” (Garmston, 1987) to refer to the teachers must agree to be members of peer
traditionaI supervisory mode of coaching study teams. Teams must
pre-conference/observation/ collectively agree to
post-conference. None of these should be a
confused with, or used for, evaluation of practice or use whatever change the
teachers. faculty has decided to implement:
b
Similar to our approach, technical support one another in the change
coaching, team coaching, and peer process. including sharing planning of
coaching (as in peer clinical supervision) instructional objectives and developing
focus on innovations in curriculum and materials and lessons: and
instruction (Kent,1985; Neubert and c
Bratton, 1987; Rogers, 1987), whereas collect data about the implementation
collegial coaching and cognitive coaching process and the effects on students
aim more at improving existing practices relative to the school’s goals.
(Garmston et al. 1993. All except team
coaching differ from our practice in that
their primary vehicle for improving or
changing classroom instruction is verbal
feedback.bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1 5
2 3
We have found it necessary and We have needed to redefine the meaning
important to omit verbal feedback as a of “coach”: when pairs of teachers observe
coaching component. The primary activity each other, the one teaching is the “coach”
of peer coaching study teams is planning and the one observing is the “coached”. In
and developing curriculum and this process, teachers who are observing
instruction in pursuit of shared goals. do so in order to learn from their
Especially when they are learning colleague. There is no discussion of the
teaching strategies designed for observation in the “technical feedback”
higher-order outcomes, teachers need to sense that we used in our early studies,
think through their overarching goals, as Generally, these observations are
well as the specific objectives leading to followed by brief conversations on the
them. Collaborative planning is essential order of “Thanks for letting me watch you
if teachers are to divide the labor of work. I picked up some good ideas on
developing new lesson and unit how to work with my students”.
sequences and use one another’s
4
products
The collaborative work of peer coaching
When teachers try to give one another
teams is much broader than observations
feedback, collaborative activity tends to
and conferences. Many believe that the
disintegrate. Peer coaches told us they
essence of the coaching transaction is to
found themselves slipping into
offer advice to teachers following
“supervisory, evaluative comments”
observations. Not so. Rather, teachers
despite their intentions to avoid them.
learn from one another while planning
Teachers shared with us that they expect
instruction, developing support materials,
“first the good news, then the bad”
watching one another work with
because of their past experiences with
students, and thinking together about
clinical supervision, and admitted they
the impact of their behavior on their
often pressured their coaches to go
students’ learning.
beyond technical feedback and give them
“the real scoop”. To the extent that
feedback was evaluative or was perceived
as evaluative, it was not meeting our
original intention.
Remarkably, omitting feedback in the
coaching process has not depressed
implementation or student growth (Joyce
and Showers, 1995), and the omission has
greatly simplified the organization of peer
coaching teams. In retrospect, it is not
difficult to understand this finding.
Learning to provide technical feedback
required extensive training and time and
was unnecessary after team members
mastered new behaviors.6 bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1
Recommendations for Training Sessions
Continuing concerns drive our work: how Third, we can provide examples of formats
best to help teachers teach students to or structures for collaborative planning. Many
build intellectual independence; teachers have shared with us their difficulty
reasoning and problem- solving jointly performing an activity they have
capability: competence in handling the traditionally done alone. A structured
explosion of information and data: and, walk-through of a planning activity can
with the help of technology, the ability to allow teams to respond to questions
navigate the information age. We believe within specific time frames, practice
that staff developers can assist educators thinking aloud about what each person
by incorporating certain behaviors in wants to accomplish, and identify overlap
their training sessions, with their colleagues’ agendas. A sample
sequence might include the following.
First, we can help schools and teams of
teachers redesign their workplaces. Think about your year’s “course”.
Rather than simply advocating that What are your big, overarching goals for
schools provide time for collaborative your students?
planning and problem-solving related to Now think about the first six weeks of
specific plans for change, we can provide school. What objectives will you need to
time during training to address this accomplish if you are to meet your year’s
problem. Reviewing Raywid’s (1993) goals? How much time can you spend in
research on finding time for collaboration review and still meet your objectives?
is one way to begin such a session.
What instructional strategies are most
Second, staff can form peer coaching appropriate for the objectives you’ve set
teams on the first day of training. When for the first six weeks? Are they consistent
entire school faculties train together, they with your year-end goals?
have many options for forming teams, Given the overlap of objectives in your
anti staff developers can facilitate team, can you divide the labour and
discussion of those options. Faculties can develop materials that others can use?
also try out various formats, comparing
costs and benefits of alternative plans. Fourth, peer coaching study teams need to
A school attempting to develop an plan how they will monitor implementation
integrated curriculum as part of its of new initiatives, and how they will
improvement plan may want to determine the impact of each initiative on
experiment with cross-subject or their students. When whole schools agree
cross-grade teams. Schools with a focus on a specific change agenda, study teams
on multicultural curriculums may want to may want to address in small groups how
spread faculty expertise on various they will discover whether their efforts are
cultures among the teams. However a having the desired effects then combine
school forms its teams, it is useful for their ideas in a whole-school session.
teachers to have immediate practice in Measuring the impact of planned change
working together toward shared goals. is critical to any school improvement effort.
The training setting is optimal for planning
mini-studies that teams can conduct
throughout the year for this purpose.bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1 7
Coaching and School Improvement
Collaborative planning and data A cohesive school culture makes possible
collection increase the time, and thus the the collective decisions that generate
cost, of staff development activities. To school wide improvement efforts. The
the extent that such activities result in formation of peer coaching teams
greater clarity about means and ends, produces greater faculty cohesion and
more thorough implementation of focus and, in turn, facilitates more skillful
planned changes, and more immediate shared decision making. A skillful staff
information about effects on students, development program results in a
the additional effort is well worth the self-perpetuating process for change as
investment. well as new knowledge and skills for
teachers and increased learning for
Adding peer coaching study teams to
students.
school improvement efforts is a
substantial departure from the way
schools often embark on change efforts.
On the surface, it appears simple to
implement – what could be more natural
than teams of professional teachers
working on content and skills? It is a
complex innovation only because it
requires a radical change in relationships
among teachers, and between teachers
and administrative personnel.
When staff development becomes the
major vehicle for school improvement,
schools should take into account both the
structures and content of training, as well
as changes needed in the workplace to
make possible the collaborative planning,
decision making and data collection that
are essential to organizational change
efforts. As we ponder ways to ensure that
training/coaching fuels the school
renewal process, we are also examining
how the culture of the school can
increasingly provide a benign
environment for collective activity.8 bces cohort 2 i June 2005 sjepc–1
References
Baker R. G. and Showers B. (1984). Showers B. (1982). Transfer of Training: the
The Effects of a Coaching Strategy on Contribution of Coaching. Eugene, Ore.:
Teachers’ Transfer of training to classroom Centre for Educational Policy and
Practice: A six month follow-up Study. Management.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Showers B. (1984). Peer Coaching: A
the American Educational Research
Strategy for Facilitating Transfer of Training.
Association. New Orleans, La.
Eugene, Ore.: Center for Educational
Garmston R. (1987). “How Administrators Policy and Management.
Support Peer Coaching.” Educational
Leadership 44, 5: 18–26.
Garmston R., Linder C. and Whitaker J.
(1993). “Reflections on Cognitive
Coaching.” Educational Leadership
51, 2: 57–61.
Joyce B. and Showers B. (1980).
“Improving Inservice Training: The
Messages of Research.” Educational
Leadership 37, 5: 379–385.
Joyce B. and Showers B. (1995). Student
Achievement Through staff Development:
Fundamentals of School Renewal. 2nd ed,
White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Kent K. M. (1985). “A Successful Program
of Teachers Assisting Teachers.”
Educational Leadership 43, 3: 30–33.
Neubert G. A. and Bratton E. C. (1987).
“Team Coaching: Staff Development Side
by Side.” Educational Leadership
44, 5: 29–33.
Raywid M. A. (1993). “Finding time for
Collaboration.” Educational Leadership
51, 1: 30–35.
Rogers S. (1987), “If I Can See Myself,
I Can Change.” Educational Leadership
45, 2: 64–67.You can also read
