Semantic variation

Peer coaching as a term is defined in multiple ways in the literature, and perhaps this variety is indicative of an approach whose name covers such disparate activities that its meaning has no singular understanding. There is a good deal of semantic variation in the literature on peer coaching, with the technique being referred to as:

• ‘technical coaching’ and ‘team coaching’ (focusing on incorporating new techniques into teaching) (Showers & Joyce, 1996);

• ‘collegial coaching’ and ‘cognitive coaching’ (focusing on the refinement of existing practice through professional dialogue and reflection) (Ackland, 1991);

137

• ‘challenge coaching’ (focuses on the ‘treatment’ of a specific problem) (Wong & Nicotera, 2003).

With so many different versions of peer coaching mentioned in key texts in the literature, we get a sense that a poorly-defined construct is at play, and this causes concern. This study aligns with the notion of ‘challenge coaching’, as the feedback provided to teachers as part of the intervention raises the idea of an area requiring improvement or, in other words, a perceived problem (relative to the teachers’ other feedback rating scores) to be solved. As such, where peer coaching is referred to in this thesis, the strand of this that is implied is ‘challenge coaching’ (Wong & Nicotera, 2003). SET data with a diagnostic purpose were issued to teachers in order to inform the conversation in their peer-coached meeting, as well as the subsequent decisions and actions they took.

Accepting - though not, by default, condoning - that there is a variety of terms indicating the same (or very similar) construct, it is useful to draw together the three key aspects of peer coaching found in the literature and usefully tabulated in Wong and Rutledge (2006) and shown, below, in Table 6.1:

138 Table 6.1: Peer coaching strategies identified in the research literature

Building institutional capacity Provide training for coaches

Determine logistics, such as incentives and class coverage

Establish an ongoing process supported by modelling, coaching, collaboration, and problem solving Focus on linking new information to existing knowledge, experience, and values

Coaches give advice about instructional content and strategies Coaches share new ideas on curriculum and instruction Coaches demonstrate classroom instruction

Development of a professional culture

Establish rationale for peer coaching program at school Set criteria for the selection of coaches

Redesign a coaching culture that values collegial interaction and professionalism among participants Define the roles of mentor and mentee: reciprocal or expert coaching

Have all teachers agree to participate in peer coaching Ongoing support for evaluation

Make peer coaching distinct from teacher evaluation Coaches observe classroom instruction regularly Coaches provide support and companionship Coaches consult about lesson plans and objectives

Coaches provide feedback and assistance through analysis of teacher application of strategies Allow for experimentation of teaching strategies

Encourage reflection on the teaching and learning process

Evaluate the peer coaching program to determine the impact of the initiative on students and teachers

139

Using the headings from Table 6.1, it can be concluded that the purpose of the peer- coached consultative feedback meeting in this PhD study was to build the capacity of teachers involved within their institution and to support ongoing evaluative processes in school. Such an approach has its pedagogical and philosophical underpinnings in the suggestion to ‘love the one you’re with’, made by Wiliam (2007) in support of teacher learning communities (TLCs). The peer-coached model adopted in this intervention study is not a pure TLC, as defined by Wiliam, by virtue of its composition and confidential nature; it is, rather, a “building-based” and flexible (Wiliam (2007), p.197) approach that seeks gradual change in teacher behaviour and action.

For the purposes of this intervention’s goals (to improve teaching and thereby student achievement), the following strategies found in the literature (and taken from Table 6.1) were viewed as offering support to the choice of peer coaching as an appropriate modus operandi:

• Focus on linking new information to existing knowledge, experience, and values; • Coaches give advice about instructional content and strategies;

• Coaches share new ideas on curriculum and instruction; • Make peer coaching distinct from teacher evaluation; • Coaches provide support and companionship;

• Coaches consult about lesson plans and objectives;

• Encourage reflection on the teaching and learning process.

The final strategy listed in Table 6.1 (‘Evaluate the peer coaching program to determine the impact of the initiative on students and teachers’) is the focus of this PhD investigation’s randomised controlled trial, as it seeks to ascertain the impact of this peer coaching programme on both students’ evaluations of teaching and students’ A Level grades.

140 Volunteer teachers’ classes evaluate teaching

The following section serves to detail the specific instructions given to, and action taken by, the teachers involved in the evaluation, whose schools had been randomised to receive the intervention.

During the week commencing 19th _{November 2012, teachers who had volunteered to}

participate in the trial and whose schools had been randomised to receive the intervention were requested to take their classes into a computer room (or similar facility in school) to complete the SecondarySEEQ instrument online, using the web-based survey software provided by Cvent46_{. The licence for this software had been purchased by CEM, Durham}

University, and the security of the website reviewed by me in a meeting with a representative from Cvent.

An email was sent to all teachers in the intervention arm detailing the actions they should take in preparation for their students’ completion of the survey. This email is found in Appendix 6b, but the paragraph containing the instructions to be given to students is printed below:

‘You’re going to take a survey that has been sent to us by a researcher at Durham University. The survey will ask you about my teaching and it shouldn’t take very long to complete. I’ve volunteered to be part of the researcher’s project and am interested to find out what you think of my teaching. As such, I want you to be honest when you give your responses. Even though you will be asked to put your name on the survey, I will not see this when I get the results back; I will only see class averages for our class and not any individual responses you give. Please don’t talk during the survey - allow each other quiet time to think carefully. When you finish, please follow the instructions I’ve put on the board. Once everyone has finished, we will continue with our lesson as normal. Please now type this address into the browser and then follow the instructions on the survey website.’

141

I asked teachers to ensure that, as far as possible, students completed the survey during their normal class time, and with the teacher whose teaching they were evaluating present in the room, but working on a task that would necessitate their sitting quietly at the desk until all students had completed the survey. In doing so, I attempted to provide parity for all classes, at least as far as it was possible to do so.

Anecdotal feedback from teachers (telephone conversations and emails) suggested that classes mostly completed the survey supervised by their teacher during class time, though some reported that students completed it at home, or during break times at school. While this was not ideal, it is very much the reality of school life: students are absent from a lesson, or priorities change, necessitating rescheduling. In order for teachers not to feel too great a pressure, I was flexible when asked (on only a handful of occasions) if it was permissible for students to complete the survey out of normal class time.

While the one-week window for completion of the survey may seem variously naïve, pressurised and unfeasible, it was chosen purposefully. My experience in schools suggested that, as Parkinson’s Law47 _{states, work expands to fill the time allotted to it; therefore, a}

restricted time period (at least a perceived one) for survey completion seemed sensible, but only with the de facto addition of a further two weeks. In reality, therefore, I set aside three weeks for the survey to be completed, but told teachers there was only one. As expected, the entire three-week period was required for completion of the survey data.

142

Teachers receive class average feedback chart (online), support resources, and a one-hour peer-coached feedback consultation

In order for teachers to receive their class average SET feedback, support resources and materials to help them prepare for their one-hour peer-coached feedback consultation with a trusted colleague, they had to access a secure website. The following paragraphs serve to describe the design and functioning of this website and its associated database.