Instructional Coaching, Moving Beyond Observation to Co-Teaching

Over the past 7 years, I have seen the power of instructional coaching and the impact on student achievement. Transfer from initiative adoption of professional development does not automatically happen. In fact, without the presence of an instructional coach, I would guess the implementation of any strategy, program, or initiative; even by educators sitting in the same professional learning, is  50/50.

With that being said, I am aware of the difference in effectiveness among instructional coaches as well. Without clearly defined roles, ongoing collaboration and professional learning, instructional coaching could look a lot like observation, sitting in a classroom and taking notes while coaching a colleague.

One untapped model that would promote the transfer into the classroom is co-teaching. Co-teaching, like coaching, can be a mixed bag of applications. That is why it essential to investigate and determine the type of co-teaching that works best in your coaching partnership.

Co-Teaching

Modeling – A traditional type of co-teaching is modeling. An expert teacher models, demonstrates, or shows the partnering teacher how to instruct. Modeling is designed to span the whole class period where the partnering teacher is observing and noting instructional moves displayed by the expert teacher or instructional coach.

Micro-Modeling – Micro-modeling is a partnership in the planning and delivery between the instructional coach and partnering teacher. During the planning session, each educator designates specific parts of the lesson they will deliver. For example, the instructional coach may deliver the minilesson during the writing workshop, demonstrating sound pedagogy in the specific area the partnering teacher designated. The partnering teacher may then agree to deliver the instruction for the small groups.

Tandem Teaching – Tandem teaching is a partnership where the coach and teacher work together in the classroom, almost “feeding” off of each other. This requires a trusting relationship, a true partnership in learning, and an adept understanding of strengths and areas of focus each has in the classroom.

Coaches who use a co-teaching model send the message that they are ready to dig-in and do the work alongside the partnering teacher. From my own experience, this dynamic process and shared vision not only improves instruction but increases transfer and student achievement in the classroom. 

Sweeney, Diane. Student-Centered Coaching

Photo by LinkedIn Sales Navigator on Unsplash

Instructional Coach: Co-Teaching

In 2013, Iowa introduced the Teacher Leadership and Compensation System as a way to “empower our best teachers to lead the efforts in improving instruction to improve student achievement.” Many models created and adopted by Iowa Schools employ the use of instructional coaches. With a need for support in their new roles, I, along with many other Iowa educators, have had the pleasure to learn from Diane Sweeney and Leanna Harris, leading experts in Student-Centered Coaching and Jim Knight.

This past Monday, we gathered to hone coaching skills with Diane and Leanna. One activity Leanna had us collaboratively complete is a venn diagram comparing PLCs and Student-Centered Coaching. Fittingly, I was situated with Dave Versteeg, from Montezuma Schools; and two of his teacher leaders. Montezuma is a model PLC school, and their expertise offered great insight in this activity. Comparison of PLCs and Coaching Cycles (1)

Upon completing the exercise, Leanna stressed a point that resonated with the group. In summary, Leanna pointed out that one important way student-centered coaching differs from PLCs is the use of co-teaching. In fact, PLCs, with the absence of co-teaching, could be viewed as in a constant state of planning.

As a literacy coach, supporting reading and writing workshop teachers; this is an area I plan to focus on. And through a collaborative conversation with both Leanna and Diane, there are many variation to co-teaching. Three main ones I share include:

Modeling – A traditional type of co-teaching is modeling. An expert teacher models, demonstrates, or shows the partnering teacher how to instruct. Modeling is designed to span the whole class period where the partnering teacher is observing and noting instructional moves displayed by the expert teacher or instructional coach.

Micro-Modeling – Micro-modeling is a partnership in planning and delivery between the instructional coach and partnering teacher. During the planning session, each educator designates specific parts of the lesson they will deliver. For example, the instructional coach may deliver the minilesson during the writing workshop, demonstrating sound pedagogy in the specific area the partnering teacher designated. The partnering teacher may then agree to deliver the instruction for the small groups.

Tandem Teaching – Tandem teaching is a partnership where the coach and teacher work together in the classroom, almost “feeding” off of each other. This requires a trusting relationship, a true partnership in learning, and adept understanding of strengths and areas of focus each has in the classroom.

 

Frequently, I admit, I get stuck in the observation mode, while the learning and implementation comes from a true partnership. Co-teaching is an excellent example of an effective, student-centered coaching technique, resulting in classroom transfer. While tandem teaching is the ideal state of the coaching relationship; there are times and content areas that impede this endeavor. Instead, focusing on micro-modeling allows a coach to focus on instruction rather than content, supporting educators pedagogical growth.