Peer Coaching: Developmental Approach to Enhancing Teacher Thinking.

Can peer coaching programs for teachers enhance teacher thinking? This question has been explored by Phillips and Glickman (1991). The authors note that staff development programs have typically treated teachers as recipients rather than as decisionmakers or active participants in their education. Traditional approaches contribute to lowered teacher morale, persistent isolation, and mental stagnation; and, thus, minimal use of newly acquired skills or knowledge. The Phillips and Glickman study evaluated a peer coaching program intended to directly involve teachers in their professional development and to stimulate their cognitive development. Twenty-two teachers at an elementary school participated in a peer coaching program based on the assumption that the teachers were competent and able to choose their own agendas for instructional improvement. Peer coaching is defined as a process in which teachers observe one another teach, give feedback concerning the observation, and together develop an instructional improvement plan. The ultimate goal is more optimal and contextualized learning for students. In this study, staff development was divided into two parts: (a) learning the peer coaching process, including steps of clinical supervision (pre-conference, classroom observation skills, and postconference) and (b) participating in four two-week long peer-coaching cycles. This study was a single group design. Throughout the program, special attention was paid to applying the guidelines for stimulating cognitive development: role-taking experiences, careful and continuous guided reflection, balance between real experience and discussion/reflection, personal support and challenge, and continuity. In the program, teachers experienced two significant new roles: (1) coach and (2) teacher being coached. This afforded an “optimal mis-match” which stretches the participants thinking somewhat, but not too far. After each observation the coach analyzed the collected data in order to help the teacher examine the teaching experience. In the post-observation conference the coach provided feedback and together with the teacher considered alternative actions and made plans for instructional improvement. Therefore, balance between real experience and discussion/reflection was incorporated into the clinical supervision process and throughout the staff development sessions. Challenge was inevitable as teachers and coaches both became students of the instructional process. Support was provided throughout the staff development with an abundance of guided practice and the mutual support of peer coaches. Group sessions allowed concerns and problems to be addressed. The program extended over a seven-month period, providing continuity. The teachers’ cognitive development, their interactions with each other, changes in their perceptions of instructional supervisory support and how the program influenced their teaching were measured. A statistically significant gain was found between the teacher’ conceptual level (Hunt, et. al, 1978) scores before the coaching program and their scores after the program. Another indicator of the teachers’ rise in conceptual level was the gain in their use of discourse, as measured by the Reflective Teaching Index (Zeicher & Liston, 1985). Interviews revealed that, in addition to the peer coaching experiences, the teachers increased their interactions with each other and also increased the number of instances they gave help to or received help from other teachers in the school. Perceptions of supervisory support services were high both before and after participation in the program. Eighteen of the twenty-two participating teachers reported that the peer coaching process would change their teaching. They said it was already helping them to: (a) focus on the specifics of teaching, (b) gain new ideas and/or information, and (c) develop new insight or awareness about the teaching process. Finally, teachers reported that they were more willing for peers to see them teach lessons that were more open-ended and involved more creativity and risk-taking than they had been. The study offers evidence for making the following recommendations regarding teacher staff development: 1) Consider teachers’ cognitive growth as a potential outcome of staff development. 2) Provide continuity in programs that include support as well as challenge over time. 3) Provide opportunities for collaborative decisions in learning about, implementing, and evaluating instruction.