University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

(USC Thesis Other)

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 1

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING PROGRAMS IN ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH

SCHOOLS AND THE IMPACT ON TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY WITH EDUCATIONAL

TECHNOLOGY

by

Adam Hernandez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Adam Hernandez

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 2
Acknowledgments

This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife, Roxanna, without whose love and
support I would not have completed this program. I continue to be inspired by your spirit and
humbled by your selflessness. And to my daughter Gabriela Noemi, you bring me an
overwhelming joy that I never thought I could experience.
I would like to thank my family for their support and patience. Special thanks to my
father; you continue to be my role model and my motivation in every walk of life. And to my
late mother, you continue to impact my life every day. You are sorely missed.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Pedro Garcia
and Dr. Laurie Love. Special thanks to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, for your
guidance throughout the program from Day 1 in Leadership class.
Finally, I would like to recognize my colleagues at USC, with special thanks to my
thematic group: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Lauren Steinmann, and Brandee Ramirez.
Your energy, encouragement, and genuine support through this process was unwavering. I was
fortunate to share this experience with you all.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Preface 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations and Delimitations 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
21st Century Skills 18
The Four Cs - Critical Thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication 19
Twenty-first Century Skills and Technology 20
Global Awareness 20
Professional Development 22
Changes Over Time in Professional Development 22
Contexts of Professional Development 25
Capacity-Building and Sustainability 26
Educational Technology 27
National Education Technology Plan 28
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 30
Technology Integration 30
Technology Acceptance 31
Devices 31
Teacher Responsibility 32
Instructional Coaching 32
The Zone of Proximal Development 32
Instructional Coaching 33
Instructional Coaching Impact 36
Teacher Self-Efficacy 37
Self-Efficacy and Technology Integration 37
Chapter Three: Methodology 41
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions 41
Purpose of the Study 42
Research Questions 42
Sample and Population 42
Design Summary 43
Instrumentation and Protocols 44
Data Collection Protocols 45
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 4
Qualitative Data 46
Quantitative Data 47
Instrument Validity 47
Data Analysis 47
Ethical Considerations 48
Summary 48
Chapter Four: Findings 49
Purpose of the Study 50
Response Rate 50
Qualitative Data Collection 53
Elementary School Teachers and Instructional Coaches 54
Middle School Teachers and Instructional Coaches 54
High School Teachers and Instructional Coaches 54
Research Question One 55
Taking Risks and Fear of Failure 56
Peer Support 61
Presence 64
Discussion 66
Research Question Two 66
Informal Conversations 70
Grade Level/Department Meetings 74
Discussion 77
Research Question Three 77
Partnership Approach Through Co-Teaching 78
Building Relationships by Establishing Trust Which Leads to Increased Confidence 80
Time to Explore New and Useful Techniques for Technology Integration 81
Discussion 84
Research Question Four 84
End-of-the-Year Survey 85
Monthly Meetings 86
Lead Instructional Coaches 87
Evaluation Tool 87
Discussion 89
Research Question Five 90
Professional Growth and Increased Self-Efficacy 91
Collaboration and Teacher Support 92
Exposure and Motivation 94
Discussion 96
Emerging Themes 97
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Implications 99
Statement of the Problem 100
Purpose of the Study 101
Research Questions 101
Methodology 102
Findings 102
Research Question One 102
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 5
Research Question Two 104
Research Question Three 105
Research Question Four 107
Research Question Five 108
Implications 109
Recommendations for Future Research 111
Limitations 111
Conclusion 112
References 115
Appendices
Appendix A: General Recruitment Letter 123
Appendix B: Interview Confirmation Email 124
Appendix C: Interview Cover Letter 125
Appendix D: Survey Informed Consent 126
Appendix E: Audio Informed Consent 128
Appendix F: Coach Interview Protocol 131
Appendix G: Teacher Interview Protocol 134
Appendix H: Teacher and Coach Survey Instrument 137

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Seven Principles of Instructional Coaching, Developed by Jim Knight
(Devine et al., 2013) 34

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate for K-12 Classroom Teachers 51
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate for K-12 Instructional Coaches 51
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Years of Teaching Experience as Classroom Teacher 52
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Years of Experience as Instructional Coach 52
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Worked One-on-One with Instructional Coach 53
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Effectiveness of Instructional Coach 56
Table 8: Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by Classroom
Teachers 67

Table 9: Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by Instructional
Coaches 68

Table 10: Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by K-12 Classroom
Teachers and Instructional Coaches 70

Table 11: Quantitative Data: Is the Work Done With an Instructional Coach Evaluated? 88

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Developed by Davis (1986) 11
Figure 2. Example of a Coaching Cycle (Based on Knight, 2007) 36
Figure 3: Sources of Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1997) 38
Figure 4: Design Process. This figure shows the process of how data was collected 44

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 8
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to understand the role that instructional coaches play in the
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. Specifically, this study sought to discover for
elementary, middle and high school levels (1) how teachers perceive their professional growth
with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach, (2) how
teachers who work with an instructional coach share what they learned with colleagues, (3) how
have instructional coaches been beneficial to teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with
educational technology, (4) what measures K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional
coaches and technology integration, and (5) whether teachers who work with instructional
coaches experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology. This study utilized a
mixed-methods approach for a case study of one California K-12 school district using an
instructional coach program for educational technology instruction and support. Interviews were
conducted with eight K-12 instructional coaches and five K-12 classroom teachers who receive
coaching in order to find information that cannot be observed and to provide answers to the
research questions. Quantitative data was collected through a digital survey completed by 12 K-
12 instructional coaches and 58 K-12 classroom teachers. Through triangulation of the data, this
research suggests that a majority of K-12 teachers found that working with an instructional coach
helped to increase their self-efficacy. Additionally, this study suggests that building self-efficacy
in teachers encourages them to more effectively use educational technology and helps teachers
share acquired knowledge with colleagues.
Keywords: instructional coach, educational technology, self-efficacy, professional development,
technology integration, 21st century skills.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 9
Preface
This dissertation case study was coauthored and has been identified as such. While jointly
authored dissertations are not common of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is
reflective of real-world practices. In order to reflect the premise of preparing doctoral students to
be collaborative, 21st century professional learners and leaders, the USC Graduate School and
the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our team to carry out this shared inquiry
venture.

This dissertation is part of a collaborative case study with four other doctoral candidates, Kristy
Andre, Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, & Lauren Steinmann. We five doctoral students
executed a thorough case study in California Unified School District (CUSD) in the elementary,
middle, and high school levels, examining the instructional coaching program district-wide and
its effect on teachers. Districts across the country are looking to bring in increased educational
technology and invest in instructional coaching at all levels for teachers. However, the process of
collecting and analyzing the data across elementary, middle and high schools was too large for a
single dissertation. As a result, each member of this case study dissertation team sent out surveys
and met and interviewed both teachers and instructional coaches at all levels and collectively
analyzed our data in order to present a complete picture of scope and impact.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Adam Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren
Steinmann
1

“Change really isn’t as hard as we thought if we capture people’s interest and give them
enjoyable, worthwhile experiences.” -Michael Fullan

School in the 21st century has undergone a dramatic and significant change in recent
years. No longer is all information that students need housed within the pages of a textbook.
Gone are the days of isolated classrooms and students being able to only access research within
the confines of their local libraries. Given the significant increase in broadband internet
throughout classrooms (Project Tomorrow, 2014), student access to information and online
collaboration continues to expand. Access to the world is now available at any hour through
mobile devices such as iPads, laptops, phones, and tablets, and students intuitively know how to
use them (Siegle, 2013). This shift is reflected in districts across the country in schools that
implemented one device for every student (1:1) programs. However, simply placing a device,
such as a tablet or laptop, in the hands of every student does not transform curriculum,
instruction, or learning on its own (Knight, 2009).
The role of the teacher in the classroom has traditionally been one of sole source of
information and direction in curriculum and instruction. Teachers long operated in isolation, only
occasionally having opportunities to collaborate, share best practices, and work on innovative
approaches to teaching and learning (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). As teaching became more
complex, the science of teaching and development of informational technologies set challenges
for both novice and veteran teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000). It is increasingly easier for

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 11
teachers to collaborate and utilize resources for teaching using educational technology and the
internet, and the expectation for teachers to collaborate and use educational technology on a
daily basis is increasing (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2010).
However, when students have constant access to the internet and information, teachers may feel
lost in their new role (Shepherd & Reeves, 2012). Early models of educational change implied
that, if teachers had access to enough equipment and training, classroom integration would
follow (Ertmer, 1999). However, that does not appear to be the case with technology
implementation. According to Kurbanoglu (2003), “individuals must feel confident and
competent in using certain technologies and skills in order to employ them effectively” (p. 636).
This confidence in competency can be defined as self-efficacy, or “people’s beliefs about their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71).
Figure 1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Developed by Davis (1989)
The technology acceptance model (TAM), developed by Davis (1989), is a framework
aimed at explaining user acceptance of informational technology (Figure 1). The focus of the
model centers on perceived usefulness versus the user’s perceived ease of use. These feed into
the user’s attitude toward use and, ultimately, their action toward using the technology (Davis et
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 12
al., 1989). The theory behind this model is that the higher the perceived usefulness of the
technology, the higher the likelihood that the user will implement it (Davis et al., 1989).
However, the perceived ease of use for the user feeds directly into their self-efficacy and whether
or not they believe that they can successfully operate or use the technology (Davis et al., 1989).
If a teacher does not possess self-efficacy with the technology, no matter how useful it is, it is
still likely that it will not be utilized in the classroom (Ertmer, 1999).
The Department of Education’s 2010 National Educational Technology Plan states,
“Educators must be more than information experts; they must be collaborators in learning,
seeking new knowledge and constantly acquiring new skills alongside their students” (US DOE,
2010, p.1). How do teachers seek out to stay informed and trained on new and changing
educational technology? Fullan and Hargreaves (2000) shared that “the goal is not to create high
quality mentor programs as ends in themselves but rather to incorporate mentoring as a part of
transforming teaching into a true learning profession” (p. 55). Districts seeking to support
teachers in the classroom with instructional technology and 21st century learning strategies
sought the help of instructional coaches. Teemant (2013) defined the broad term coaching as a
time which “provides teachers with individualized, continuous, and extended support from a
more knowledgeable other” (p. 581). Coaches offer teachers an opportunity to engage in
professional conversations that have a direct impact on student success and “prepare teachers to
become change agents who are committed to making a difference in the lives of people” (Fullan
& Hargreaves, 2000, p. 54). Fullan and Hargreaves (2000) shared that “the goal is not to create
high quality mentor programs as ends in themselves but rather to incorporate mentoring as a part
of transforming teaching into a true learning profession” (p. 55). Instructional coaches serve
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 13
elementary, middle, and high school teachers in effectively integrating technology into their
curriculum and instruction.
Instructional coaching is a type of embedded, ongoing professional development for
teachers at their school site (L’Allier et al., 2010). Research shows that site-based, ongoing
professional development is one of the best delivery models for teachers (Teemant, 2014).
Coaching is a form of ongoing professional development that can have an impact on teachers and
instructional practices in the classrooms. The coaches, well-versed in technology, curriculum,
and implementation into the classroom, offer support, ideas, updated strategies and information
to teachers with the goal of advancing not only student learning, but increasing teacher self-
efficacy and the overall success of an educational technology program or initiative. However,
there is a lack of data on the overall effectiveness and impact of instructional coaches on teacher
practice and whether they have an impact on both teachers and district initiatives in relation to
technology and 21st century learning practices.
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this case study was to examine the relationship between instructional
coaching with educational technology as embedded 21st century professional development and
the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes. While there are several studies on the impact of 21st
century teaching and learning, as well as on technology in the classroom, little data exists to
support instructional coaching and its impact on teacher self-efficacy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the role that instructional coaches play in
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. The study also sought to uncover types of
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 14
instructional coaching models that are most effective for districts as well as the logistics of using
coaching to support district-wide technology initiatives.
Research Questions
The following research questions helped guide this study:
1. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers perceive their professional growth
with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
2. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with an instructional
coach share what they have learned with colleagues?
3. How have instructional coaches been beneficial to elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational technology?
4. What measures do K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional coaches and
technology integration?
5. Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with instructional coaches
experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant, as it adds to the field of educational research on 21st century
teaching and learning as well as district-wide educational technology initiatives that utilize
instructional coaches. Findings serve to benefit school districts, site administration, teachers, and
coaches by providing information on the potential link between instructional coaching and the
increase of teacher self-efficacy with educational technology. In addition, superintendents and
school boards seeking to implement district-wide educational technology initiatives may benefit
from the implications and recommendations provided within this study.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 15
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The ability to gain access to instructional coaches.
2. The ability to gain access to a district that employs a large number of instructional
coaches.
3. The ability or willingness of instructional coaches to provide accurate responses.
4. Only interviewing instructional coaches in California.
5. Interviewing a small number of instructional coaches will not be representative of all
instructional coaches; therefore, the study results may not be generalizable to a larger
population.
Delimitations
The study was delimited in two areas:
1. Interviews were limited to instructional coaches who had been in the position for at least
one year.
2. The population was limited to instructional coaches’ specific grade levels or schools and
may not be generalizable to instructional coaches across all K-12 settings.
Definition of Terms
● 21st Century Teaching and Learning: A lesson that focuses on teaching students to think,
problem solve, analyze and reason in order to create effective communicators that are
curious and equipped with critical thinking skills (Wagner, 2008). This type of teaching
and learning also incorporates technology tools that will prepare students to be college
and career ready (Wagner, 2008).
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 16
● District-Wide Educational Technology Initiative: an opportunity established by a K-12
public school district with a clear vision and plan that focuses on utilizing technology to
enhance and strengthen teaching and student learning
● Educational Technology: “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and
improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources” (Richey, 2008, p. 24).
● Effective Instructional Coaches: “skilled communicators, or relationship builders, with a
repertoire of excellent communication skills that enable them to empathize, listen, and
build trusting relationships” and in this study the coaches are able to increase the self-
efficacy of a teacher they are coaching (Knight, 2009, p. 31).
● Instructional Coach: “An instructional coach partners with teachers to help them
incorporate research-based instructional practices into their teaching… [which] help
students learn more effectively” and specifically looking at coaches utilizing technology
in their coaching (Knight, 2009, p. 18).
● Self-Efficacy: “People’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of
performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” and in this case, it
is a teacher’s belief in their abilities regarding teaching practice and technology
(Bandura, 1994, p. 71).
● Professional Development: “Activities that improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of
the academic subjects the teachers teach, and enable teachers to become highly qualified”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 17
Organization of the Study
A mixed-methods design was used to gather and analyze data pertaining to the research
questions. The qualitative data was collected by using the case study format. Interviews were
conducted with instructional coaches and teachers receiving coaching in order to find
information that cannot be observed and to provide answers to the research questions.
Quantitative data was collected through a survey sent to instructional coaches and teachers being
coached by the instructional coaches.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Authors: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Adam Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren
Steinmann
2

The purpose of this study was to understand the role that instructional coaches play in
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. A review of available literature was conducted in
order to seek supporting resources related to self-efficacy, instructional coaching and 21st
century learning. This chapter provides a review of relevant literature that supports the study and
research questions. The following areas were analyzed, synthesized, and interpreted: (1) 21st
century skills, (2) professional development, (3) educational technology, (4) instructional
coaching, and (5) teacher self-efficacy.
21st Century Skills
The importance of competencies for the 21st century led to fundamental questions about
the extent to which we provide the necessary knowledge base for children and youth to be
competent in contemporary and future societies (Voogt, Erstad, Dede, &Mishra, 2013). It is
obvious that not only learners, but also teachers need to acquire 21st century competencies as
well as become competent in supporting 21st century learning. Teachers need to be prepared for
new pedagogical approaches that fit the 21st century as well as to understand how information
and communication technologies and pedagogy interact in order to be able to facilitate the
development of 21st century competencies in their students (Voogt et al., 2013). It is not only a
matter of trading 20th century content and goals for those of the 21st century, but a matter of
redefining what has to be considered as core in the 21st century curriculum and considering the

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 19
implications of such a curriculum for the current school system (Dede, 2010b; Voogt et al.,
2013).
Educators agree with business leaders and other interested groups that specific skills are

needed for students to succeed in life in the 21st century of global communication, social

networking, and a world of new technologies (Smith & Hu, 2013). Teaching 21st century skills

equips students to think critically and communicate effectively as well as to become self-directed

learners and problem solvers (Smith & Hu, 2013). Educators, employers, and the general public

believe that mastering 21st century skills prepares students to succeed in our constantly changing

world (Smith & Hu, 2013).

School districts, administrators, and teachers must recognize the importance of
integrating 21st century skills into teaching and learning (Boyer & Crippen, 2014). Adopting
and implementing innovative strategies to teaching and learning will take time and commitment
by all stakeholders. In the new millennium, students, parents, educators, and the community
must respectfully work together to harness new opportunities for advancement of learning and
teaching while acknowledging that positive change of this magnitude will take time, patience,
and perseverance (Boyer & Crippen, 2014).
The Four Cs - Critical Thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication
The National Education Association (2010) interviewed business and educational leaders
to determine which 21st century skills were most important to develop for K-12 education.
These skills became known as the four Cs: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and
creativity. Using the four Cs to engage students is imperative. As educators prepare students for
this new global society, teaching the core content subjects—math, social studies, the arts—must
be enhanced by incorporating critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 20
(National Education Association, 2010). We need new tools to support classroom teachers and
education support professionals in their profession, even as they implement new strategies in
their classrooms (National Education Association, 2010). Soland et al., argued that citizens who
think critically are more likely to be self-sufficient and, therefore, less of a drain on state
resources. Other researches suggested that citizens are more suited to give back to society,
including entrepreneurship efforts which are aimed at benefiting the overall society (Soland et
al., 2013). Subsequently, educational programs around the world gained momentum in the
incorporation of creativity (Soland et al., 2013). For example, China and Singapore devoted
resources to fostering more creativity in their schools (Peredo & McLean, 2006; Soland et al.,
2013).
Twenty-first Century Skills and Technology
Scholars are now learning different technological tools and how to use them for specific

circumstances and purposes (Voogt et al., 2013), as well as attempting to understand how

technology shapes competencies necessary for life today and in the future (Voogt et al.,

2013). Research showed a significant gap between such visions and how technologies are

actually implemented in educational practice (Voogt et al., 2013).

Due to technological developments, an important change took place in the way new
digital tools and collaborative environments have potential to enhance teaching and learning
(Voogt et al., 2013). The emphasis shifted from reproducing information and content to content
creation and sharing in virtual environments (Voogt et al., 2013). As a society becomes more
enlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to transmit and conserve the whole of its existing
achievements, but only such as make for a better future society (Dewey, 1916). This type of
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 21
teaching and learning also incorporates technology tools that will prepare students to be college
and career ready (Wagner, 2008).
Global Awareness
Globalization of the economy and rapid technological change pose new and demanding
challenges to individuals and societies. School systems rethink what knowledge and skills
students will need for success and the educational strategies and systems required for all children
to achieve them. (Soland et al., 2013). Public school systems are expected to promote a wide
variety of skills and accomplishments in their students, including both academic achievement
and the development of broader competencies, such as creativity, adaptability, and global
awareness (Soland et al., 2013). The latter outcomes, which are often referred to as 21st century
skills or 21st century competencies, recently took a more central role in policy discussions
because they are seen as critical components of college and career readiness (Soland et al.,
2013).
Wagner (2008) described 21st century teaching and learning as a lesson that focuses on
teaching students to think, problem solve, analyze and reason in order to create effective
communicators that are curious and equipped with critical thinking skills. Teachers throughout
districts suggested that measuring these 21st century competencies actually helped make
curriculum more engaging (Soland et al., 2013). As an offshoot of incorporating creativity,
communication, and collaboration into projects and their grading schema, the assignments
became more multifaceted and, therefore, more engaging (Soland et al., 2013). To be globally
aware, a person must also show an understanding of the inter-relatedness of people, institutions,
and systems. Being able to connect how actions in one area of the world affect other areas, or
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 22
how local events influence and are influenced by global events, is a core part of global awareness
(Soland et al., 2013)
Professional Development
In the field of education, the category of professional development has been studied and
presented across varying pieces of relevant literature (Avalos, 2011). Common threads weave
throughout the literature and focus primarily on enhancing teacher learning with the ultimate
goal of increasing student achievement (Avalos, 2011; Guskey, 2009; Kretlow, Cooke, & Wood,
2011; Slepkov, 2008). The learning needs of those undertaking professional growth are vastly
different depending on traditions, cultures, policies, and/or school conditions, and diverse forms
of professional development had some effects on teacher growth (Avalos, 2011). With multiple
means of accomplishing professional development, researchers explored the changes over time
in professional development, contexts of professional development, systems that invest in
professional capital and capacity-building, and sustainability of large scale change efforts
(Avalos, 2011; Fullan, 2006; Hargreaves, 2000; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013).
Changes Over Time in Professional Development
Teaching is complex, and development of competence and deeper understanding through
professional development can benefit novice and experienced practitioners (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2000). “For practicing teachers, PD [professional development] is perhaps one of the
most important bridges from research to classroom implementation” (Kretlow et al., 2011, p.
349). Hargreaves (2000) outlined ages of teacher professionalism that span through four
historical phases: (a) the pre-professional age, (b) the age of the autonomous professional, (c) the
age of the collegial professional, and (d) the fourth age, post-professional or postmodern
professional. These ages, presented through research by Hargreaves (2000), provide insight into
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 23
current experiences and perceptions that impact teacher professionalism and transformation of
public education in the current age.
In the pre-professional age, skills for teaching were acquired through practical
apprenticeship, learned by watching others, and, once an individual learned how to teach, the
teacher was seen as mastering the profession (Hargreaves, 2000). Professionally, when a teacher
was no longer working as an apprentice, feedback was eliminated and interactions with
colleagues halted, leaving a teacher on their own (Hargreaves, 2000). Further learning, according
to Hargreaves (2000), was acquired through trial and error within the confines of isolated
classrooms. In the 1960s, the age of the autonomous professional, Hargreaves (2000) claimed
that individualism was a common characteristic of teaching, as teachers continued to teach in
isolation, separated from their colleagues. While induction and mentoring programs were
introduced during this time, these experiences were viewed for only novices or those needing the
help (Hargreaves, 2000).
In the mid-1980s, the age of the collegial professional, a growing pressure to collaborate
ensued as teaching became increasingly more complex (Hargreaves, 2000). A common purpose
began forming, and the building of professional communities, according to Hargreaves (2000),
provided space for risk-taking, collaboration, and inquiry. Research by Fullan and Hargreaves
(1996), asserted the following implications for teacher education, professional learning, and
mentoring that aligns to this age of professionalism:
● Teachers learn to teach in new ways,
● Professional learning is seen as a continuous process, grappling with complex and
evolving issues,
● Continuous learning is both an individual responsibility and an institutional obligation,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 24
● Professional learning is not to be found in a choice between school-based and course-
based modes of provision by in an active integration of and synergy between the two,
● Collegial professionalism means working with, learning from, and teaching colleagues,
and
● Teaching must be framed and informed by professional standards of practice that define
what good teachers should know and be able to do and what qualities and dispositions
they should possess to care for and connect with their students.
In the 21st century, Hargreaves (2000) contends how teaching now requires the ability to
work with diverse communities under escalated pressures and demands. With an increase in
access to technology and networks, organizations have the potential to develop inquiry-based
professional development that aligns to goals for improving student learning (Fullan &
Hargreaves, 2000; Guskey, 2009). Research on the models of coaching, mentoring, and in-
service models revealed that authentic professional development, which is aligned to long-term
initiatives, sets the stage for teachers’ deeper cognition and learning (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000;
Kretlow et al., 2011; Slepkov, 2008). In this age of postmodern professionalism, Hargreaves
(2000) forecasted two possible options: (1) a social movement of positive learning opportunities
which create new partnerships and advances the learning for students and teacher growth, or (2)
increased pressures and work demands that breakdown teaching and reduce opportunities for
professional growth.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 25
Contexts of Professional Development
Knowing that each organization and school site differs and that types of professional
development are successful at some settings, but not others, the context of professional
development is increasingly more important (Guskey, 2009). Fullan (2006) defined contexts as
“the structures and cultures within which one works” (p. 116). Guskey (2009) asserted that “the
most powerful content will make no difference if shared in a context unprepared to receive it and
use it” (p. 229). Structures such as courses and workshops, along with in-service and coaching
models, serve differing purposes, and participation in professional learning communities
discussing data and sharing strategies serves additional purposes (Avalos, 2011). Fullan (2006)
claimed that the question was “whether organizations can provide training and experiences for
their leaders that will actually increase their ability to identify and take into account system
context” (p. 115). Additionally, if, in fact, this can be done as means aligned to professional
development, “it [training and experiences] would make it more likely that systems, not just
individual could be changed” (Fullan, 2006, p. 115).
In a 6-month study conducted by Dr. Howard Slepkov (2008), professional learning and
the growth of a group of teachers within authentic learning environments was documented.
Participating in the Grassroots project, these teachers were supported and coached on topics of
their choice within their classroom environment (Slepkov, 2008). Findings confirmed that this
form of professional development where learning was passed onto students, has the power to be
more successful and utilized more in the future (Slepkov, 2008). Fullan and Hargreaves (2000)
shared that “the goal is not to create high quality mentor programs as ends in themselves but
rather to incorporate mentoring as a part of transforming teaching into a true learning profession”
(p. 55).
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 26
In a study completed by Kretlow et al. (2011), combined professional development of in-
service and coaching revealed high levels of satisfaction and use of research-based strategies
within the classroom. An in-service was provided to small groups of individuals in a setting that
provided multiple opportunities for practice and application of learned concepts (Kretlow et al.,
2011). However, this is not classified as a typical in-service, which could consist of large groups
of teachers with a facilitator who is unable to provide practice and feedback to all participants
(Kretlow et al., 2011). After decades of assuming that teachers teach alone and get better only
through their own individual trial and error, there is increasing commitment to the ideas that all
teachers are more effective when they can learn from and be supported by a strong community of
colleagues (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000).
Capacity-Building and Sustainability
Fullan (2006) shared, in his work on educational change, that, if system-wide change is
desired, organizations need to move beyond solving issues of student achievement and into
leading toward sustainability. “Short on time and pressured for results, stressed school leaders
often rush through the planning process [professional development] in hopes of promptly gaining
new ideas and immediate improvements” (Guskey, 2009, p. 226). Fullan (2006) advocated for
the establishment of goals and viable action steps to obtain early results to ensure a stronger
system with fewer problems and asserted the following eight elements of sustainability for
organizations:
1. Public service with a moral purpose
2. Commitment to changing context at all levels
3. Lateral capacity-building through networks
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 27
4. New vertical relationships that are co-dependent encompassing both capacity-building
and accountability
5. Deep learning
6. Dual commitment to short-term and long-term results
7. Cyclical energizing
8. The long level of leadership
Sustaining professional development requires an investment to develop positive
collaborative cultures, strategies, and trainings to, according to Fullan (2006), “generate more
and more leaders who could think and act with the bigger picture in mind thereby changing the
context within which people work” (p. 121). Hargreaves (2000) shared that, if individuals desire
better learning environments for students, then it is necessary to invest and create superb
professional learning and working conditions for teachers.
Literature on professional development is limited and varies greatly depending on
contexts (Avalos, 2011). Guskey (2009) asserted the need for added pressure on researchers to
improve the study of professional development and claimed that the billions of dollars spent in
public schools on growth efforts deserve serious study. Over time, with additional research in the
area of professional development and its connection to elevated student learning, professional
development will move to an inquiry-based profession aligned to school/district goals and
improving student achievement (Guskey, 2009).
Educational Technology
“The study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating,
using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” Richey (2008, p. 24).

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 28
National Education Technology Plan
In June 1996, initiated by the Clinton/Gore administration, Secretary of Education
Richard Riley put forth the first National Education Technology Plan (NETP) that was mandated
by Getting American Students Ready for the 21st Century (Alamin, Shaoqing, & Le, 2015). In
the policy, four goals were established with the expectation of being achieved by the year 2000
(U.S. Department of Education, 1996):
● All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students
learn using computers and the information superhighway;
● All teachers and students will have modern multimedia computers in their classrooms;
● Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway; and
● Effective software and online learning resources will be an integral part of every school’s
curriculum.
Federal funding was provided through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which
was a 5-year, 2-billion-dollar initiative (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). The expectation
was that, by the year 2000, all states would have a plan in place to show how the technology
would be integrated, teachers would be trained, and staff development would be implemented
(U.S. Department of Education, 1996). By the year 2000, technology became more affordable,
and it was evident that a new plan should be set in action for educational technology. The second
NETP, e-Learning--Putting a World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children, included
access for students and teachers for information technology at home and in the classroom (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). Under this plan, students would be expected to have technology
and information literacy skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Additionally, teachers
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 29
would be expected to utilize technology to transform their classroom teaching and student
learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
Toward A New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and
Today’s Students Are Revolutionizing Expectations, the third NETP plan, was developed in 2004
and factored in No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). This plan also
addressed the new expectation for student performance growth on state assessments (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004). The 2004 NETP set forth the following seven action steps and
recommendations: (1) strengthen leadership, (2) consider innovative budgeting, (3) improve
teacher training, (4) support e-learning and virtual schools, (5) encourage broadband access, (6)
move toward digital content, (7) integrate data systems (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
The movement behind this plan was to utilize technology to its fullest potential.
In 2010, the NETP Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology
set out five goals and recommendations to transform American education (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010): 1.0 Learning: Engage and Empower, 2.0 Assessment: Measure What Matters,
3.0 Teaching: Prepare and Connect, 4.0 Infrastructure: Access and Enable, 5.0 Productivity:
Redesign and Transform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). This plan focused more on
connected teaching that would connect teachers to online communities where teachers would be
able to access data, resources, experts, and peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
In 2016, Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education
discussed the vision for America focusing on equity, active use, and collaboration (U.S.
Department of Education, 2016). The plan set recommendations for states, districts, and
postsecondary institutions, with the focus on learning, teaching, leadership, assessment, and
infrastructure (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In the recommendation for teachers, the
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 30
plan described how teachers need to be a guide-on-the-side with students in order to create more
mature learners (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The teaching aspect also focused on
teachers collaborating beyond the walls of their schools and utilizing online communities to plan
their teaching and learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Building teacher capacity in
online and blended learning was also mentioned in the recommendation, and the way to do this is
to come together and make sure that teachers have access to current research-supported practices
(U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
The ISTE proposed National Educational Technology Standards for students in 1998.
This set of educational technology standards were the first for the United States and were quickly
adopted around the nation (Alamin et al., 2015). In the start of the 21st century, standards for
teachers were proposed and followed by a set of standards for administrators (Alamin et al.,
2015). Six years later, ISTE pushed out a set of standards for preservice teachers, and, in 2011, a
set of coaching standards were developed as well (Alamin et al., 2015). In 2016, ISTE called for
input for a new refresh to the ISTE standards for students. With the NETP and the standards
from ISTE, it seemed like the nation would be set in the field of educational technology.
However, without providing proper hardware to schools and the proper training to teachers, there
is no guarantee that the plan, or standards, were implemented (Alamin et al., 2015).
Technology Integration
Technology integration and implementation in schools and classrooms is directly linked
to teacher self-efficacy (Wang & Ertmer, 2003). The expectation for teachers to collaborate and
use educational technology on a daily basis is increasing (ISTE, 2010) across school districts and
communities. Yet, despite the increased availability and support for classroom computer use,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 31
relatively few teachers have fully integrated technology into their teaching (Wang & Ertmer,
2003). Research shows that user acceptance, satisfaction and perceived usability of innovative
technologies are crucial to the diffusion of those technologies (Holden & Rada, 2011).
Technology Acceptance
According to the NETP and ISTE, implementing technology into curriculum is a way for
teachers to prepare students with the skills needed for the 21st century, but that poses a question
as to how administrators get teachers to accept this new way of teaching with technology?
According to Hu, Clark, and Ma (2003), it is not the actual devices that block technology from
being implemented effectively, but the human side that stops it from happening. It is important
that administrators cultivate a positive community where technology is accepted and also
supported by helping teachers gain the knowledge and experience they need in order to
implement technology effectively (Hu et al., 2003). The ease of use also influences teachers’
acceptance because, if technology is perceived as useful, then teachers are more apt to use it (Hu
et al., 2003). Ongoing user training should be provided in order to ensure that technology
continues to be accepted (Hu et al., 2003). Hu et al. (2003) stated that teachers’ willingness to
adopt new technologies also depends on their self-efficacy and whether or not the technology is
beyond their baseline learning curve.
Devices
As teachers learn how to implement technology into their daily lessons, the technology
continues to increase in type (Shepherd & Reeves, 2012). In the 1996 NETP, it was only
important for students to understand the information superhighway, but interactive whiteboards,
smartphones, tablets, applications for the tablets, and software also exist. According to Shepherd
and Reeves (2012), students are not meant to just be consumers of all this information, but it is
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 32
important for teachers to develop curriculum that allows students to synthesize their thoughts,
along with generating new ideas and participating in meaningful conversations. The technology
serves as the device, which will allow students to redefine the way they previously learned by
providing access to a learning environment 24 hours a day, seven days a week (Shepherd &
Reeves, 2012). Utilizing devices allows teachers to implement the NETP and gives students
opportunities to collaborate outside the traditional classroom, which, in turn, prepares them for
the professional world (Shepherd & Reeves, 2012).
Teacher Responsibility
As teachers develop curriculum that incorporates technology, there is a responsibility to
train students to utilize technology appropriately (Ribble & Miller, 2013). A particular area of
interest from the literature is the use of social media and how to stop and prevent cyberbullying
(Ribble & Miller, 2013). Teaching students how to have empathy toward one another is also an
area of focus because, with the increase in use of technology, students are becoming less
empathetic toward one another (Ribble & Miller, 2013). Administrators also have
responsibilities, and literature states the need to find ways to use technology for individual
capacity-building, so administrators are serving as technology leaders, and as an example for
teachers and students (Ribble & Miller, 2013). As educators learn more about technology, Ribble
and Miller (2013) asserted the importance of realizing that technology is a tool for supporting
and extending the learning experience and not the only tool.
Instructional Coaching
The Zone of Proximal Development
In the late 1920s, psychologist Lev Vygotsky developed one of the most widely known
sociocultural learning theories known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Shabani,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 33
Khatib, & Ebadi, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky defined the ZPD as, “the distance between
the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peer” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In other words, when a learner
attempts a new or difficult task but has a capable peer working alongside them to jointly
complete the task, they will ultimately be more successful and independent in the future (Shabani
et al., 2010).
Peer coaching with teachers models the ZPD through the idea of knowledge transfer from
a colleague through social interaction (Shabani et al., 2010; Gallucci, DeVoogt Van Lare, Yoon,
& Boatright, 2010; Cornett & Knight, 2008). Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD theory can be seen as the
link between the individual learning of teachers and a more collaborative experience utilizing
peer, or coach, support (Gallucci et al., 2010). By talking, modeling, and teaching certain skills,
peer coaching helps to provide a non-threatening environment and a scaffolded approach to
learning. This environment utilizes the ZPD to take learners from a novice stage in certain skills
into, ultimately, independence (Shabani et al., 2010).
Instructional Coaching
There are different models of peer coaching utilized in schools and districts, including
cognitive coaching, literacy coaching, and peer coaching (Cornett & Knight, 2008). Instructional
coaching, however, is a model developed by Jim Knight and his colleagues at the University of
Kansas in the Center for Research on Learning (Cornett & Knight, 2008; Devine, Houssemand,
& Meyers, 2013; Knight, 2007). Instructional coaching is based on the partnership approach
(Knight, 2007) and incorporates, “knowledge transfer, knowledge development, and human
interaction” (Cornett & Knight, 2008, p. 206). As seen in Table 1, instructional coaching is based
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 34
upon seven key principles: equality, choice, voice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity
(Cornett & Knight, 2008; Devine et al., 2013).
Table 1
Seven Principles of Instructional Coaching, Developed by Jim Knight (Devine et al., 2013)
Equality
The partnership is a relationship between two equal professional peers.
The coach and collaborating teacher add equal value to the coaching
process.
Choice
The choice of what is to be learnt and how it is to be learnt is the
teacher’s. This ensures that the instructional coaching is tailor-made
for the individual needs of the teacher and that the teacher remains in
the driving seat of his or her own development.
Voice
In a partnership, each voice, opinion, perspective, and point of view is
valued. Teachers are encouraged to express their views about the
content and methods being learnt, and to find their own voice with
regards to the learning agenda.
Dialogue
As this is a partnership, one party does not impose or dominate.
Partners engage in exploration and conversation, learning together. An
open and authentic dialogue is created so that both parties engage in
reflection about the material to be learned and applied.
Reflection
Teachers are invited to think about and consider ideas before choosing
to adopt them. Engaging in reflective dialogue allows teachers to
become reflective practitioners, and to make considered choices about
their teaching practice.
Praxis
After reflection and planning, the core of the approach is about putting
learning into practice in everyday working life. The focus of
instructional coaching is to help teachers to apply their ideas in the
classroom as those ideas are being learned.
Reciprocity
All partners benefit from the instructional coaching process, the coach
learns alongside the teacher and vice-versa.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 35
Instructional coaching is seen as a non-supervisory role. Gallucci et al. (2010) explained,
“instructional coaches do not typically have positional authority to evaluate other adults; thus,
they do not work from a position of supervisory power and must use expertise and relationships
to exert influence” (p. 922). In this non-supervisory approach, instructional coaches work
alongside teachers as colleagues and mentors embedded in the classroom to provide ongoing
support (Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012; L’Allier et al., 2010).
Coaching requires a sophisticated toolkit of skills, including content knowledge,
leadership skills, relationship-building and communication (Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight, 2008).
Though the role can be unclear and heavily dependent upon context and participants (Gallucci et
al., 2010), instructional coaching can be most successful when incorporating strategies such as
modeling, pre- and post-conferences and observation (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012;
Gallucci et al., 2010; Cornett & Knight, 2008). In fact, the coaching model itself can vary
significantly, yet most researchers agreed that instructional coaching utilizes a sort of cycle
(Figure 2) that includes a pre-conference, modeling, and a post-conference (Devine et al., 2013;
Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012).

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 36

Figure 2. Example of a Coaching Cycle (Based on Knight, 2007)
Instructional Coaching Impact
Instructional coaching is currently implemented worldwide with a high degree of success
(Devine et al., 2013; Knight, 2007; Knight & van Niewerburgh, 2012; Kretlow et al., 2012). This
indicates that the partnership approach (Knight, 2007) is a model that works well for teachers in
their professional development. Various studies indicate that coaching teachers has a positive
impact on student learning (Gallucci et al., 2010; L’Allier et al., 2010). Coaching, however, is
more focused on teacher learning. As an ongoing professional development model that is
embedded in a school’s culture, instructional coaching can provide a specific, malleable
professional development experience for teachers (Devine et al., 2013; L’Allier et al., 2010).
In many ways, the million dollar question of education is often, what makes a great
teacher? In fact, once great’ teachers are discovered, the question remains, how do you duplicate
that success? The answer is often complicated and intertwined with human interaction and
professional roles. When teachers are positioned as novices and told by experts which practices
work best, the results are often poor (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). In this way, the
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 37
instructional coaching framework of a partnership approach becomes necessary (Knight, 2007;
Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). In a peer-based relationship, the delicate social balance of
power is not disrupted, and teachers are led to discover their own solutions (Knight & van
Nieuwerburgh, 2012).
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy and Technology Integration
Self-efficacy may be defined as a belief in one’s own ability to perform an action or
activity necessary to achieve a goal or task (Bandura, 1997). In addition to this, Bandura (1997)
defined self-efficacy as a belief in one’s own capabilities to organize and execute the course of
action required to attain a goal. Perceived self-efficacy, on the other hand, refers to an identified
level and strength of self-efficacy (Kear, 2000). There is a close link between attitudes and
experience and the attainment of self-efficacy (Kurbanoglu, 2003). According to Bandura,
(1997), efficacy perceptions develop from a gradual attainment of skills and experience over
time. Therefore, individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting information primarily
from their previous experience (Kurbanoglu, 2003). This is often why it is difficult to measure a
teacher’s self-efficacy when implementing new technology because there is a lack of data based
on previous experience with specific devices, software, learning management systems or ways to
manage and implement technology in the classroom. Kagan (1992) noted that teachers’ beliefs
appear to lie at the heart of teaching and tend to be associated with a congruent style of teaching;
hence, changes to teaching style, as might be required by working with technology, may
necessitate changes to teachers’ beliefs, which he also described as stable and resistant to change.
Self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by other characteristics and prior experiences within a
particular domain (Abbitt, 2011). There are four main sources that drive people’s beliefs in
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 38
themselves. The four primary influences on self-efficacy beliefs are (a) mastery experience-past
performance, (b) vicarious experiences-learning through others, (c) social influences-social
persuasion, and (d) physiological and affective states-somatic and emotional states (Bandura,
1997).

Figure 3: Sources of Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1997)
Mastery experience relates to actual performance of a behavior or task and is believed to
be the most powerful source of information influencing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Successful performance leads to increased self-efficacy whereas repeated failures may result in
lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Mastery experiences were suggested as having the strongest
influence on self-efficacy beliefs and, therefore, the strongest influence on behavior (Abbitt,
2011). With mastery experiences having the strongest influence on self-efficacy and teacher
behavior, research also looked at additional influences, such as instructional strategies and time
on task, and their effect on self-efficacy beliefs (Abbitt, 2011). Both domains may play a role in
a teacher’s thoughts and actions regarding technology use in the classroom (Abbitt, 2011).
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 39
Instructional strategies, such as problem-based learning, often lend themselves to improving
teachers’ ability to effectively use technology because teachers and students are continually
performing a task (Abbitt, 2011). Additionally, the amount of time spent using a computer,
meaning time on task, was positively correlated with self-efficacy beliefs regarding computer use
(Abbitt, 2011).
There are barriers when it comes to the implementation of technology. In general,
teachers are hesitant to adopt curricular and /or instructional innovations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010), but it is especially true of technology innovations because, unlike curricular
changes which occur only periodically, technology tools and resources are constantly changing
(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), the
main obstacles found that specifically affect teachers’ ability to adopt and integrate technology
within schools are (a) knowledge of the subject, (b) external factors (e.g., lack of equipment) and
(c) internal factors (e.g., lack of confidence).
So, how do districts support teachers in the implementation of technology and increase
self-efficacy among teachers? Cole, Simkins and Penul (2002) focused on the benefits of having
a technology mentor or coach. Sugar (2005), investigated the benefits of a technology coach
program and whether this proposed program could be an effective professional development
approach to educating teachers and about technology integration. The study found that a
technology coach or mentor program can provide the individualistic attention and apparently can
be successful in helping teachers overcome initial obstacles in learning these technologies
(Sugar, 2005). It also found the individualized relationship between coach and teachers also
examines the overall role of an instructional coach (Sugar, 2005). Additional findings were that
the role of a coach must encompass not only technology content and skills, but also provide an
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 40
inviting, empathetic, and patient environment for teachers to learn and adopt new technologies.
Sugar (2005) also pointed out that the key ingredient of a teacher-coach relationship is
collaboration.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Authors: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Adam Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren
Steinmann
3

The previous chapters examined the current state of technology and 21st century learning
in education and made a case for the need of instructional coaching. A review of the literature
demonstrated that instructional coaching can help increase teacher self-efficacy in various areas;
however, coaching within educational technology implementation has yet to be widely studied.
This is partly due to the fact that such programs are either rare or very much in their infancy
stages across California school districts. The increasing presence of new technologies in
education means a steeper learning curve for teachers. Without scaffolded supports and
professional development, the likelihood of the technologies being used regularly and faithfully
is slim. Additionally, outside of knowledge of operation and use, a teacher’s belief of their own
ability to teach with new technology greatly affects its use in the classroom.
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions
The aim of this case study was to examine the relationship between instructional
coaching with educational technology as embedded 21st century professional development and
the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes. While there have been several studies on the impact
of 21st century teaching and learning, as well as technology in the classroom, little data exists to
support instructional coaching and its impact on teacher self-efficacy.

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 42
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the role that instructional coaches play in
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. The study also sought to uncover types of
instructional coaching models that are most effective for districts as well as the logistics of using
coaching to support district-wide technology initiatives.
Research Questions
The following research questions helped guide this study:
1. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers perceive their professional growth
with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
2. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with an instructional
coach share what they have learned with colleagues?
3. How have instructional coaches been beneficial to elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational technology?
4. What measures do K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional coaches and
technology integration?
5. Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with instructional coaches
experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology?
Sample and Population
The study was conducted as a case study in a California public K-12 school district.
Therefore, the criteria for the study was first established and the sample was thus selected based
on the identified criteria and research questions. Aligning with the work of Merriam (2009), a
researcher must select a sample from which the most learning can be uncovered, especially when
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 43
the goal is to discover, understand, and gain insight. The units of analysis were instructional
coaches and classroom teachers in a California public K-12 school district. Purposeful sampling
was used to select instructional coaches and random sampling was used to select classroom
teachers for participation. Based on doctoral research in the field of education, the sample size
was set at a minimum of 40 individuals for participation in an interview and/or a survey. The
sample size fluctuated based on entry and access to participants and when point of saturation
and/or redundancy was reached.
The population for this case study was a California public K-12 school district consisting
of more than 30,000 students across 24 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 4 comprehensive
high schools, and one continuation high school. The participants were primarily classroom
teachers and instructional coaches within the same identified district, across elementary, middle,
and high school settings. The process for securing participants required planning, as it was
necessary to ensure that the teacher participants had or would be working directly with an
instructional coach during the case study. Instructional coaches and teachers were contacted
directly and provided with a letter that stated the purpose of the study and a request for
participation.
Design Summary
The study used a mixed-methods approach in which both quantitative and qualitative data
were collected and analyzed. The quantitative data of this study utilized electronic surveys that
were given to instructional coaches and classroom teachers who received support from the
instructional coaches in the district which was the subject of the study. The qualitative data were
derived from open-ended questions in an electronic survey along with interviews with
instructional coaches and classroom teachers. Triangulation was used to examine the
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 44
consistencies among the literature, survey data, and interview data (Maxwell, 2013). The figure
below provides an illustration of the design process. Data collected from the surveys were used
to refine questions for the interviews with the instructional coaches and teachers. The purpose
and importance of interviews was to discover information that could not be observed, and it
allowed the researcher to collect the participant’s perspective on matters (Patton, 2002).

Figure 4: Design Process. This figure shows the process of how data was collected
Instrumentation and Protocols
Data were collected through a mixed-methods approach in the form of surveys and
interviews. The researcher conducted interviews in a semi-structured method along with
standardized open-ended interview questions to collect information regarding instructional
coaching and its effect on teacher self-efficacy. The researcher carefully constructed all
questions prior to any interviews taking place. Patton (2002) described four essential reasons for
using standardized open-ended interviews: (1) the exact instrument used in the evaluation is
available for inspection by those who will use the findings of the study, (2) variation among
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 45
interviewers can be minimized where a number of different interviewers must be used, (3) the
interview is highly focused so that interviewee time is used efficiently, and (4) analysis is
facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare. The semi-structured method allowed
the researcher to remain flexible during interviews (Merriam, 2009). Interviews were limited to a
population of instructional coaches specific to grade levels or schools, which may not be
generalizable to instructional coaches across all California public K-12 school settings.
The qualitative instrument was used to provide the researcher the opportunity to
understand the meaning behind the effects of instructional coaches on teacher self-efficacy with
technology. In a qualitative study, the researcher is interested not only in the physical events and
behavior that take place, but also in how the participants in the study make sense of these and
how their understanding influences their behavior (Maxwell, 2013).
The quantitative instrument used to collect data was an electronic survey. The survey
instrumentation was field tested by other educational researchers and included a variety of
questions based on the literature review and the research questions contained in this study. This
approach allowed the researcher to report on particular categories in addition to relationships
between categories. The great attraction of fixed-term, pre-categorized-response survey
questions is that, because they ask the same question of every respondent with the same limited
options for response, they can report the proportion of respondents who chose each option
(Weiss, 1994).
Data Collection Protocols
A mixed-methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative data, was used.
Creswell (2009) acknowledged that the strength of a mixed-methods approach is greater than
either the qualitative or quantitative method by itself. Qualitative data were collected in the form
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 46
of interviews, and the quantitative data were collected via an electronic survey. Prior to the
interviews, each participant received a pre-questionnaire, using Google Forms, in order to guide
the interview. This allowed for a preview of what the participants were thinking with regard to
the topic of coaching prior to meeting with them. A standardized open-ended interview, which
gave the opportunity, as Patton (2002) suggests, to elicit the information that was needed from
the participants efficiently, was used with each participant. The interview focused on asking
appropriate questions as well as beginning the interview in a timely manner, and, finally,
recording and evaluating interview data. The interviews also focused on the nature of the
interaction between the interviewer and the participants (Merriam, 2015). Prior to the interviews,
each participant gave permission to record the interview in order to preserve everything that was
said in order to analyze the data (Merriam, 2015). Once consent was obtained, the interviews
proceeded with specific research questions and continued with purposeful questions in order to
yield descriptive data (Merriam, 2015). Researchers consistently stated why the research was
taking place and participants were thanked when the interview was complete.
Qualitative Data
Interviews of coaches and teachers were conducted to elicit information regarding the
coaching model and teacher self-efficacy with technology integration. During the interview,
participants were asked questions related, but not limited to, the following topics: (a) 21st
century skills, (b) professional development, (c) educational technology, (d) instructional
coaching, and (e) teacher self-efficacy. The protocol and specific questions were administered
consistently to all participants. In addition to the standard, open-ended questions, clarifying
follow-up questions were used to give the participants the opportunity for elaboration.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 47
Quantitative Data
In order to collect quantitative data, a survey was created which allowed researchers to
reach more participants and gather additional information regarding coaching, teacher self-
efficacy and technology integration from additional school sites across the district. A forced-
choice response style, with a 4-point Likert-type scale was used, omitting the neutral response of
neither agree or disagree (Fink, 2013).
Instrument Validity
The instrumentation selected for this study was based on a mixed-methods approach and
included surveys and interviews. The survey’s validity was determined by the similarity to other
instruments used in prior related studies. The survey questions were created by research done
with educational technology, coaching and teacher self-efficacy. Survey and interview protocol
were gender neutral.
Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to examine instructional coaching with educational technology
and its link to teacher self-efficacy. This study looked at one socioeconomically diverse
California public K-12 school district and how it utilized instructional coaching across all
schools as a form of embedded professional development to drive the implementation of
educational technology. The interview and survey questions were generated as a means to
identify the effectiveness of instructional coaching with educational technology and its
relationship to teacher self-efficacy.
The data from interviews, surveys, and documents collected were coded and analyzed.
All interviews were recorded using the VoiceRecord Pro app and transcribed verbatim in order to
preserve their entirety. These conversations were then coded, categorized, and analyzed. Coding
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 48
was completed using pre-determined sub-categories which correlated to the study’s research
questions. Emergent codes also surfaced during the coding process and led to further analysis of
the data. After manual coding, formal analysis of the data began. Data analysis, synthesis, and
narrative of the study’s findings can be found in Chapter Four.
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (2009) shared that ethical practice actually comes down to the individual
researcher and his/her own values and ethics that are brought into the study. This study was
approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the University of Southern California and
conducted with written and verbal consent from each participant. In order to ensure the rights of
the participants, safeguards were put in place so that each participant’s anonymity was
guaranteed. Participation in this project was entirely voluntary. Access to survey results and
transcribed interviews was limited to the research team, their chairperson, and USC’s IRB.
Summary
This study was designed with a mixed-methods approach which incorporated quantitative
and qualitative data collection by way of interviews and surveys. Interviews were conducted
with a semi-structured approach and surveys were distributed electronically. Maxwell (2013)
stated that triangulation allows the researcher to examine consistencies among the data collected.
The literature review, surveys, and interviews provided the researcher an opportunity to
triangulate the data to analyze the effectiveness of instructional coaches on teacher self-efficacy
with technology in K-12 public school systems.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 49
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Authors: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Adam Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren
Steinmann
4

As technology in the classroom made a dramatic shift in recent years, so has the role of
the classroom teacher. To successfully utilize and teach with technology, teachers’ knowledge
base must shift significantly. This shift may affect the self-efficacy of the instructor based on
his/her own perception of how well he/she is able to make this transition. This case study aimed
to examine the relationship between instructional coaching with educational technology as
embedded 21st century professional development and the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes.
This chapter presented the findings from a mixed-methods case study of one California
public K-12 school district, CUSD, examining the technology coaching models across
elementary, middle, and high schools. The study consisted of a digital survey completed by 58
K-12 teachers and 12 K-12 instructional coaches as well as interviews with five K-12 teachers
and eight K-12 instructional coaches. The interviews and surveys aligned with the following
research questions which drove the study:
1. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers perceive their professional growth
with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
2. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with an instructional
coach share what they have learned with colleagues?
3. How have instructional coaches been beneficial to elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational technology?

4
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 50
4. What measures do K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional coaches and
technology integration?
5. Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with instructional coaches
experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study is to understand the role that instructional coaches play in
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. The study sought to uncover types of instructional
coaching models that are most effective for districts, as well as the logistics of using coaching to
support district-wide technology initiatives.
Response Rate
The study was conducted as a case study in California Unified School District (CUSD), a
California public K-12 school district, therefore the criteria for the study was first established
and the sample was thus selected based on the identified criteria and research questions. The
units of analysis were instructional coaches and classroom teachers. CUSD has established a
technology instructional coaching program where two classroom teachers at each school site
(elementary, middle, and high school) serve as instructional coaches for their staff. There are 22
elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 2 K-8 schools, and four comprehensive high schools in
CUSD. A survey was sent to all the instructional coaches in CUSD. The instructional coaches at
all the levels were asked to pass along the survey to the classroom teachers that they support at
their site. Table 2 shows that 58 K-12 classroom teachers elected to respond. Of those K-12
classroom teachers, 31% teach at the elementary school level, 12% at the middle school level,
and 57% at the high school level. Table 3 shows that 12 K-12 instructional coaches elected to
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 51
respond. Of those K-12 instructional coaches, 13% support at the elementary school level, 42%
at the middle school level, and 8% support at the high school level.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate for K-12 Classroom Teachers
Response Rate for K-12 Classroom Teachers Number Participated Percent Participated
Elementary Level Classroom Teachers 18 31.03
Middle Level Classroom Teachers 7 12.07
High Level Classroom Teachers 33 56.90
Total 58 100.00

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate for K-12 Instructional Coaches
Response Rate for K-12 Instructional Coaches Number Participated Percent Participated
Elementary Level Instructional Coaches 6 50.00
Middle Level Instructional Coaches 5 41.67
High Level Instructional Coaches 1 8.33
Total 12 100.00

Table 4 outlines the years of teaching experience of the surveyed K-12 classroom
teachers. The data indicated that 24% of K-12 teachers had been teaching 1 to 5 years, 19% had
between 6 and10 years of experience, 25% had been teaching 11 to 15 years, and 33% of the K-
12 participants had been teaching between 16 and 20 years. High school classroom teachers
comprised the majority of this level with 79% with 16 to 20 years of experience.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 52
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Years of Teaching Experience as Classroom Teacher
Years of Experience as
Classroom Teacher
1 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 15 16 – 20 Total
Reported by Classroom
Teachers
# % # % # % # % # %
Elementary School
Classroom Teachers
2 14.29 5 45.45 8 57.14 3 15.79 18 31.03
Middle School Classroom
Teachers
4 28.57 2 18.18 0 0.00 1 5.26 7 12.07
High School Classroom
Teachers
8 57.14 4 36.36 6 42.86 15 78.95 33 56.90
Number of Respondents 14 24.14 11 18.97 14 24.14 19 32.75 58 100.00

Table 5 outlines the years of experience by surveyed elementary, middle, and high school
level instructional coaches. Data showed that 33% of K-12 instructional coaches had 1 to 2 years
of experience, 50% had between 3 and 4 years of experience as an instructional coach, and 17%
had five or more years of experience.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Years of Experience as Instructional Coach
Years of Experience as Instructional Coach 1 – 2 3 – 4 5+
Reported by Instructional Coaches # % # % # %
Elementary School Instructional Coaches 1 16.67 3 50.00 2 33.33
Middle School Instructional Coaches 3 60.00 2 40.00 0 0.00
High School Instructional Coaches 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00
Number of Respondents 4 33.33 6 50.00 2 16.67

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 53
All K-12 surveyed classroom teachers were asked if they had worked one-on-one with an
instructional coach. Table 6 shows the responses as reported by classroom teachers at the
elementary, middle, and high school levels. Forty-seven percent of K-12 classroom teachers
stated “Yes” to working one-on-one with an instructional coach, and 53% stated “No” to
working one-on-one with an instructional coach. This indicates that more than half of the
individuals surveyed had not experienced a direct working relationship with an instructional
coach. Through interview data, it was learned that instructional coaches provide support through
staff meetings, designated lab hours and co-teaching.
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Worked One-on-One with Instructional Coach
Worked One-On-One With An Instructional Coach Yes No Total
Reported by Classroom Teachers # % # % # %
Elementary School Classroom Teachers 8 61.54 5 38.46 13 100.00
Middle School Classroom Teachers 3 42.86 4 57.14 7 100.00
High School Classroom Teachers 10 40.00 15 60.00 25 100.00
Total Number of Respondents 21 46.67 24 53.33 45 100.00

Qualitative Data Collection
Each of the elementary, middle, and high school interviews were conducted in person and
were recorded with an audio recording device using the Voice Record Pro app. Each K-12
instructional coach and classroom teacher was also guaranteed anonymity to allow them to freely
respond. One instructional coach from the district level was interviewed and is referred to as
Lead Instructional Coach.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 54
Elementary School Teachers and Instructional Coaches
Elementary school qualitative interviews were conducted with two elementary teachers
and four elementary instructional coaches. The elementary instructional coaches who were
interviewed are herein referred to as Elementary Instructional Coaches A, B, C, and D.
Classroom teachers who were interviewed are referred to as Elementary Teachers A and B. All
of the elementary instructional coaches elected to be in their position, and two of the
instructional coaches were also classroom teachers. Elementary instructional coaches supported
all classroom teachers grades kindergarten through sixth. The interviewed elementary classroom
teachers were both females, one was a kindergarten teacher and the other a second grade teacher.
Both elementary classroom teachers were supported by an instructional coach for one year.
Middle School Teachers and Instructional Coaches
Middle school qualitative interviews were conducted with one middle school teacher and
three middle school instructional coaches. The middle school instructional coaches interviewed
are referred to as Middle School Instructional Coaches A, B, and C. The middle school
classroom teacher interviewed is referred to as Middle School Teacher A. The interviewed
middle school instructional coaches had been in their position for the past two years, and all
three middle school instructional coaches had elected to be in their position. The middle school
instructional coaches supported all seventh and eighth grade teachers at their sites across all
disciplines. The interviewed middle school classroom teacher was supported by an instructional
coach for one year.
High School Teachers and Instructional Coaches
High school qualitative interviews were conducted with two high school teachers and one
high school instructional coach. The interviewed high school instructional coach is referred to as
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 55
High School Instructional Coach A. The interviewed high school classroom teachers are referred
to as High School Teacher A and B. The interviewed high school instructional coach had been a
coach for the past two years and elected to be in that position. The high school instructional
coaches supported all teachers of grades 9 through 12 at their high school sites and across all
disciplines. The interviewed high school teachers were supported by a high school instructional
coach for one year.
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers
perceive their professional growth with educational technology as a result of working alongside
an instructional coach?”
The perception of growth for a teacher links directly to the idea of self-efficacy. Bandura
(1997) discussed that self-efficacy may be defined as, “a belief in one’s own ability to perform
an action or activity necessary to achieve a goal or task.” In other words, an individual’s belief in
their own ability may often outweigh their outright ability to complete a task.
Elementary, middle, and high school classroom teachers who reported that they worked
with an instructional coach were asked to respond to the following question: Do you feel that you
have improved your educational technology use since working alongside an instructional coach?
As seen in Table 6, 85.71% of elementary teachers, 64.29% of middle school teachers and 50%
of high school teachers who worked with instructional coaches reported that they felt that the
instructional coaches were very effective or extremely effective in improving their use of
educational technology. These figures indicate that the teachers’ own perceptions of their
improvement as a result of working with an instructional coach improved greatly.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 56
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Effectiveness of Instructional Coach
Effectiveness of
Instructional Coach
Extremely
Effective
Very
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Slightly
Effective
Total

Reported by Classroom
Teachers
# % # % # % # % # %
Elementary School
Classroom Teachers
1 50.00 5 35.71 2 66.67 0 0.00 8 42.11
Middle School
Classroom Teachers
1 50.00 2 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 15.78
High School Classroom
Teachers
0 0.00 7 50.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 8 42.11
Total 2 100.00 14 100.00 3 100.00 0 100.00 19 100.00
Reported by
Instructional Coaches
# % # % # % # % # %
Elementary School
Instructional Coaches
1 50.00 3 50.00 1 50.00 1 100.00 6 54.54
Middle School
Instructional Coaches
1 50.00 3 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 36.36
High School
Instructional Coaches
0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 1 9.09
Total 2 100.00 6 100.00 2 100.00 1 100.00 11 100.00
Total 4 13.33 20 66.67 5 16.67 1 3.33 30 100.00

Taking Risks and Fear of Failure
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. A hurdle for elementary
teachers using technology in the classroom seemed to be a fear of failure. Elementary Teacher A
stated, “that’s probably my biggest, my scariest risk, is just it [the technology] not working.” In a
profession where the teacher traditionally holds all of the knowledge and has all of the answers,
the idea of not knowing something, or for technology to simply not work, is seen as a frightening
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 57
prospect. However, the theme of having a built-in support system with an instructional coach
seemed to result in a positive professional experience for K-5 teachers. When asked how having
an instructional coach affected her success with utilizing technology in the classroom,
Elementary Teacher B stated, “If she wasn’t there, I think it would definitely make me more
hesitant to try something new.” Elementary Teacher B went on to describe how she felt as a
result of having access to an instructional coach on her campus:
If I’m wanting to try something new, I feel like I know I automatically have the support
net in case something goes wrong or I just hit a wall. I know that [the instructional coach]
is there to help. Even if she doesn’t know necessarily the answer, I know she’s looking to
troubleshoot, and she will do whatever she can to help me out.
The security of having a reliable source of support through the instructional coach was needed by
teachers in order to encourage them to take risks.
Additionally, the time that can be lost if something does not work correctly can make
teachers reticent to risk trying something new due to the loss of instructional minutes. When
asked about one the of the largest hurdles in using new technology in the classroom, Elementary
Teacher A stated,
Probably just the time, I think. I mean, kindergarten’s so different. We only have three
hours a day with these kids, so it’s hard to take the risk to try some things because you
know that, if you’re fussing around with it for 10 or 15 minutes, that’s a big chunk of
kindergarten.
Respondents stated that the risk in using technology in the classroom is the loss of instructional
time, the possibility of technology not working correctly, and a lack of confidence to take a risk
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 58
to implement technology on their own. Having an instructional coach at a teacher’s side,
however, can be seen as a safety net that can help them make that choice.
The idea of taking a risk and having a safety net in the form of an instructional coach was
a recurring theme in interviews with elementary teachers. Similarly, the modeling of failure was
important for instructional coaches, as it seemed to help eliminate the fear of failure in teachers
with whom they have interacted. Elementary Instructional Coach A conveyed that she felt
comfortable trying, and possibly failing at, new technological endeavors in front of teachers
because she knew that it would help model the idea that failure is okay and not something to be
feared. In her words,
Like, in the training that I did, something happened. It all went wrong, and I had to
completely start over. And, so, it was really good. People said that they were really happy
to see that because that is what everyone is afraid of…When I am teaching and
something goes wrong, and I have to stop and totally switch what I am doing. But, it was
good for them to see that that does happen, even to people who use it every day. And it’s
just...it is okay.
According to Elementary Instructional Coach A, failing in front of the teachers she was working
with was utilized as a teaching point in order to model the behaviors and attitudes that would
help those same teachers be successful with their students when attempting to use new
technology.
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Taking risks in the classroom may
be amplified if classroom teachers do not see the benefit to teaching or learning immediately.
Middle School Instructional Coach B stated, “I think that [teachers] feel that it’s harder to learn
the new software... In the end, they don’t see it’s a time saver, and, so, they don’t really
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 59
understand why they’re bothering to learn it.” This fear of failure or trepidation with risk-taking
was shown to be a significant hurdle for middle school instructional coaches to overcome. When
reflecting on the district switch from one digital learning management system to another, Middle
School Instructional Coach A stated,
There’s a huge focus on switching over from Teacher Web to Canvas. That was a big
initiative for middle school because not everybody is an early adopter, so it was more
difficult for me to work with some people who didn’t want to switch over because they
felt like, “Well, then I have to learn something different, or learn something new.” That
was kind of a challenge.
This challenge in implementing a new technology program was echoed by middle school level
teachers as well. Middle School Teacher A described the times that she decided to seek out
assistance from an instructional coach as a result of being frustrated with new technology. In her
words,
It was mostly like Canvas and how do I navigate Canvas or, “Hey, I think I want to do
this kind of thing, and it seems like it can do it, but I’m not quite sure how to do it best or
how it works. If you’ve done this before can you give me your insights on how you’ve
done this since you’ve been using it?”
When middle school teachers are reticent to try new technology or programs, the instructional
coach can struggle to get these teachers involved. However, the presence of an instructional
coach can help teachers make the leap into unknown territory with educational technology.
Middle School Instructional Coach A explained,
I think the biggest common challenge, I would say, is them being too busy, or they have
so much content to cover, or they might be so used to doing it in a particular way, that
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 60
they’re not so interested in incorporating another thing, or another method. They kind of
like what they know. I feel like, unless someone pushed them or nudged them, it’s
difficult to make that transition to using technology with that purpose.
Middle school level instructional coaches appear to act as the “nudge” that teachers need in order
to transition toward a new strategy or application in the classroom.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. The fear of failure in the pursuit of
something new is a very pervasive feeling for teachers. While some high school teachers shared
that they were afraid to pursue new learning with educational technology and, thus, stayed far
away from it, other 9th to 12th level teachers felt that there was no choice. When asked what he
would say to a reticent teacher regarding technology in the classroom, High School Teacher B
stated, “I think my first response would be, well, figure it out, because you’re going to have to.
It’s part of the world now. It’s part of instruction now. It’s not going to go away.” Additionally,
some high school teachers shared that, in addition to seeking help from their instructional
coaches, teachers needed to have a self-help attitude with technology. This could be viewed as
teachers believing that self-efficacy was the key to moving forward with technology. When
asked about teachers who felt that they always needed a coach or mentor in order to learn, High
School Teacher A stated,
I can see where some would say, “I need the help. I can’t do it on my own.” And, um,
what would I say to them? “You got to take risk. You got to try. I can help you.” But then
that’s…that’s a de facto type coach. But, you know… some people just aren’t going to
budge, and I think people who say “I can’t be successful unless I have a coach,” they’re
probably right because they’re not going to be that type of person who takes the risk or
just tries to figure it out on their own.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 61
The link drawn here between risk-taking and self-efficacy demonstrates that, while instructional
coaching may help in capacity-building, it may not serve as the best long-term solution for self-
efficacy in teachers.
Peer Support
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. According to Knight (2012),
the idea of peer support is the basis of the instructional coach program model. Instructional
coaching is a role where coaches work alongside teachers as colleagues and mentors embedded
in the classroom to provide ongoing support (Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight and van
Nieuwerburgh, 2012; L’Allier et al., 2010). This peer support can, then, be replicated by
teachers. Elementary instructional coaches reported that they help to empower K-5 level teachers
to not only use technology in the classroom, but also to help other teachers at their school site.
Elementary Instructional Coach B stated,
The teachers feel that the instructional coaches support them, and they make them feel
better, and they feel like they kind of passed the torch from like, hey, multiplier effect. I
taught you. You go show the rest of the people in your department and it kind of grows.
This peer modeling, of both successes and failures, seemed to help teachers stumble through a
new challenge. The fact that the elementary instructional coaches are also peers, as opposed to
supervisors or outright experts seemed to help teachers. Instructional coaching is a non-
supervisory role in which the coach exerts no power over the teacher outside of the relationship
that they build (Gallucci et al., 2010). Additionally, the fact that an instructional coach was also
still a teacher and understood the daily challenges and demands of the job seemed to help
teachers. Elementary Teacher A stated, “I think because they’re teachers, and, so, they know the
problems we face. So, then, they know the more realistic programs we can try. I think they’re
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 62
just more on a teacher level than a computer professional.” This peer coaching role appeared to
be beneficial to elementary teachers who were risk-averse with new technology as well. The idea
of having a close, embedded peer proved beneficial to teachers at Elementary Teacher A’s
school site. In her words,
It’s funny because our instructional coach shares a room with one of these veteran
teachers that’s terrified and will not try anything. It’s been a great match for the two of
them because I know this teacher…We just constantly tell her, “Just try it. Just try it. Just
figure it out. Just sit down.” Our [instructional coach] does a great job. She’s been so
patient with her, and she literally will sit with her and walk her through, and they write
notes on their little papers so that the other teacher will go back and go through it step by
step if she forgets.
The fact that Elementary Teacher A learned through observing the interaction between another
teacher and a coach helps to define the scope and reach of the instructional coach’s role on a
campus. The peer coaching relationship demonstrates how a peer, as opposed to a supervisor or
expert, can develop myriad relationships with teachers in order to instruct and support.
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. The peer support offered through an
instructional coaching model is one that seems to be replicated in the classroom. Middle school
teachers appear to take what they learned with their coach and apply it with their students.
Additionally, middle school instructional coaches as classroom teachers in CUSD seem to apply
their own coaching strategies with their students. Middle School Instructional Coach A stated,
I think just using it in my own classroom and having my students talk about it, or
demonstrating it. I think that peaks their interest. That might be the initial interest, but
then showing them again, maybe the next year. Using Kahoot! once at a staff meeting,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 63
that’s great, but, then, actually having them use it in their own classroom to see the
effectiveness. That’s even better.
This instructional coach demonstrated risk-taking for other teachers through her own actions.
This kind of strategy demonstrates the peer- and non-supervisory role of an instructional coach
for a teacher. This peer role was demonstrated to be one of key importance in the instructional
coach model. Teachers appear to develop more trust and interest with a fellow teacher as
opposed to a tech expert. As Middle School Instructional Coach D explained, “We had a lot of
media techs that wanted to be the instructional coaches, but the complaints from the teachers
were that the media techs didn’t have a classroom and didn’t understand the pedagogy that was
happening.” CUSD addressed the idea that teachers wanted to be coached and mentored by
fellow teachers as opposed to experts in a particular field. When that peer is knowledgeable in an
area where you would like to learn, the power of instructional coaching can emerge. As Middle
School Instructional Coach A stated,
I think for most people, if you’re working with...it also goes with students. If you’re
working next to somebody who’s slightly better than you, or knows slightly more...I
don’t want to say better, but knows more about technology, or whatever it is that you’re
talking about, it kind of motivates you to want to know more about that same topic, too.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. The peer relationship is echoed at the
high school level as a benefit to teachers seeking out the assistance of instructional coaches. The
CUSD model of having instructional coaches also be classroom teachers seemed to help in
building trust with the teachers seeking help. When discussing the instructional coaches and their
effect on campus, High School Teacher A stated,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 64
I think they [instructional coaches] are a good model for the rest of us [teachers], and
because they are peers and they’re our friends, basically, that, I think, has a really
positive impact of, you know, you’re just sitting down with a friend, and they’re teaching
you how to do something new.
The idea of meeting with “a friend” can lessen the anxiety of seeking help as well as draw in
reluctant teacher learners.
Presence
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. The instructional coach
program at CUSD has two coaches at each elementary site. Teachers stated the benefit of the
ongoing ability to seek help or support when they needed it. However, when asked if they had
worked directly with an available instructional coach, 66% of elementary teachers surveyed
responded, “No” (Table 5). The reasoning behind this could vary, but Elementary Teacher A,
who had recently decided to take advantage of the instructional coach program, provided this
perspective:
I know just in the last two years, they [instructional coaches] have become a lot more
accessible and a lot more known. That their role has become a lot more known. I do see a
difference, definitely, in the past two years that I can…Like I said, they’re kind of our
first go to people if we have a problem, but they’re also the people that give us more of
the realistic and useful ideas.
The elementary teachers who had worked with instructional coaches stated that they saw the
effectiveness of the program. As seen in Table 6, 85.71% of elementary level teachers who
worked with instructional coaches found them to be extremely effective or very effective. The
coach’s presence and ability to interact with and support teachers could be affected at a school
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 65
site for a variety of reasons. However, the K-5 level teachers who had worked with an
instructional coach seemed to see a benefit.
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. At the middle school level, 42.86%
of teachers reported working directly with an instructional coach (Table 5). While this number
does not reflect the number of teachers affected through indirect contact with an instructional
coach (i.e., strategies shared at a staff meeting or new information shared in bulk emails), it is
lower than both the elementary and high school levels. The apparent low numbers of
participation in the instructional coaching program at the middle school level caused some
coaches to reflect on their own practices. Middle School Instructional Coach C reflected,
If I was going to do it again this year, I might do follow-up surveys on how our open lab,
or how our lesson, or whatever it was helped them and if they were actually using the
software in their classroom and how effective it is. We didn’t have anything like that in
place, but I think that is something, if I was teaching again, if I was an [instructional
coach] again this year, it might be something I would do.
This reflection on practice demonstrates that the instructional coach program in CUSD, though
still in its infancy, has room to grow and evolve to serve teachers and students even better.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. Overall, 50% of high school teachers
who worked directly with an instructional coach stated that they felt that coaches were Very
Effective or Extremely Effective (Table 6). However, in reflecting on their presence, some high
school level instructional coaches expressed that they wished that there were more time to work
directly with teachers. Whether or not this would have an impact on self-efficacy in a positive
way is unclear. However, the struggle of coaches balancing the responsibilities of coaching along
with teaching began to emerge. High School Instructional Coach A stated,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 66
In terms of training, there’s a lot of, “Oh, and here we have this. Go figure it out on your
own time,” which, if you’re a younger person, you might already know it, or it’s intuitive
because it’s similar to something you’ve done, and you can spend an hour or so, and
you’ve figured it out. For those of us who are not coming from that background, yeah, no,
it’s not intuitive, and it would take a whole lot more time.
This instructional coach reflected that, even though the coaching role helped high school
teachers, a lack of time impeded the work of working alongside them. The coach also brought up
the idea that certain teachers may be more apt to learn a program more quickly but that other
individuals may need more time.
Discussion
Instructional coaches across elementary, middle, and high school settings serve as a
safety net for teachers when trying out new technology or instructional strategies. The peer
partnership and non-evaluative model puts K-12 level teachers at ease and helps them focus on
learning, rather than being judged. The trust formed in the teacher-coach partnership can also
serve as a model to other teachers and help alleviate the fear of trying something new. The
classroom teachers who work with instructional coaches across K-12 levels unanimously see the
benefit. However, there are still a significant number of teachers who do not take advantage of
the instructional coach program in CUSD.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How do elementary, middle, and high school
teachers who work with an instructional coach share what they have learned with colleagues?”
Fullan and Hargreaves (2000) share that in the new millennium there is an “increasing
commitment to the idea that all teachers are more effective when they can learn from and be
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 67
supported by a strong community of colleagues” (p. 52). Surveyed elementary, middle, and high
school classroom teachers were asked to respond with “Yes” or “No” to the following question:
Do you share the information gained from working with an instructional coach with your
colleagues? All surveyed elementary school teachers, 67% of middle school teachers, and 60%
of high school teachers responded “Yes” to the qualitative survey question.
Classroom teachers who worked with an instructional coach across K-12 grade levels
were also asked on the survey to select the specific methods used for sharing knowledge with
colleagues. Table 8 displays five methods of sharing and the frequency as reported by
elementary (ES), middle (MS), and high (HS) school classroom teachers. Data showed that
100% of all surveyed K-12 classroom teachers who answered this question selected “informal
conversations” as a method of sharing knowledge.
Table 8
Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by Classroom Teachers
Methods of
Sharing
Knowledge
Email
Present at
Staff
Meetings
Share at
Grade
Level
and/or
Department
Meetings
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC)
Informal
Conversation
s
Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
ES Teachers 4 50.00 4 50.00 8 100.00 4 50.00 8 100.00 8 100.00
MS Teachers 1 50.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 2 100.00
HS Teachers 3 50.00 1 16.67 5 83.33 3 50.00 6 100.00 6 100.00
All K-12
Classroom
Teachers
8 50.00 5 31.25 15 93.75 7 43.75 16 100.00 16 100.00

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 68
Surveyed instructional coaches at elementary, middle, and high school levels were asked
to respond with “Yes” or “No” to the following question: Do teachers you work with share what
they have learned with their colleagues? Eighty-three percent of the surveyed elementary
instructional coaches, 100% of middle school instructional coaches, and 100% of high school
instructional coaches responded “Yes” to the qualitative survey question. Surveyed instructional
coaches were also asked to select the methods that they believed were utilized by classroom
teachers at the specific K-12 grade level that they supported. Table 9 displays five methods of
sharing and frequency with which elementary (ES), middle (MS), and high (HS) school
instructional coaches feel that teachers utilize them to share acquired knowledge with colleagues.
Ninety-one percent of K-12 instructional coaches who answered this question selected “informal
conversations” as a method of sharing knowledge. This data is consistent with reported data from
K-12 classroom teachers.
Table 9
Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by Instructional Coaches
Methods of
Sharing
Knowledge
Email
Present at
Staff
Meetings
Share at
Grade
Level
and/or
Department
Meetings
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC)
Informal
Conversations
Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
ES
Instructional
Coaches
3 60.00 3 60.00 5 100.00 3 60.00 4 80.00 5 100.00
MS
Instructional
Coaches
3 60.00 4 80.00 4 80.00 2 40.00 5 100.00 5 100.00

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 69
Table 9, continued
Methods of
Sharing
Knowledge
Email
Present at
Staff
Meetings
Share at
Grade
Level
and/or
Department
Meetings
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC)
Informal
Conversations
Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
HS
Instructional
Coaches
1 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 100.00
All K-12
Instructional
Coaches
7 63.63 7 63.63 10 90.90 5 45.45 10 90.90 11 100.00

Table 10 confirms that informal conversations and grade level and/or department
meetings were the two most utilized methods for sharing acquired knowledge with colleagues as
reported by all K-12 classroom teachers and instructional coaches. Ninety-six percent of all K-12
classroom teachers and instructional coaches selected “informal conversations” and “share at
grade level and/or department meetings” was selected by 93% of all K-12 classroom teachers
and instructional coaches.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 70
Table 10
Quantitative Data: Methods of Sharing Knowledge Reported by K-12 Classroom Teachers and
Instructional Coaches
Methods of
Sharing
Knowledge
Email
Present at
Staff
Meetings
Share at
Grade
Level
and/or
Department
Meetings
Professional
Learning
Community
(PLC)
Informal
Conversations
Total
# % # % # % # % # % # %
All K-12
Teachers
and
Instructional
Coaches
15 55.56 12 44.44 25 92.59 12 44.44 26 96.29 27 100.00

Informal Conversations
Interviewed elementary, middle, and high school classroom teachers who had worked
with an instructional coach were also asked to share if and how they shared acquired learning
from their instructional coach with colleagues. Quantitative data revealed informal conversations
as a primary method of sharing acquired knowledge with colleagues across elementary, middle,
and high school settings, and interview data concurred.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. Fullan (2013) associated a
push-pull-nudge philosophy to the development of professional capital within educational
settings. A nudge is the manner in which people are enabled to make better choices by trying and
guiding little by little (Fullan, 2013). Elementary classroom teachers at CUSD who had worked
directly with an instructional coach had the ability to nudge their colleagues by engaging in
sharing learning specific to technology integration.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 71
Elementary Teacher A discussed how the instructional coach at her site “gives us realistic
and useful ideas.” Because the instructional coaches also serve as classroom teachers,
Elementary Teacher A stated, “they know the problems we face, so then they know the more
realistic programs we can try.” She continued by explaining how she engaged in conversation
with a veteran teacher who was hesitant in using a lesson plan application that was previously
shared by the instructional coach. In her words,
Like the lesson plan app that they [instructional coach] shared with us at the beginning of
the year, I know a lot of us took on and decided to use and, then, I don’t want to
stereotype, but some of the older staff members were a little more hesitant. We sat down
with the two veteran teachers on our team that were like, “No way. I’m not doing it.”
Fullan (2013) also described that the pull factor is when individuals are drawn in with
excitement. However, everyone is not ready to be pulled. By identifying those who have the
potential to serve as site leaders, instructional coaches work to build capacity and excitement for
technology use across elementary classrooms. Elementary Instructional Coach B shared,
I think you go identify the teachers that are going to lead and figure it out, and, then,
spread from there. You try to keep those front-running teachers running by giving them
the things that will keep them running and excited in the trainings. Sending them to
conferences and keeping them on the front edge of it all, because everybody’s going to be
there within 3 to 5 years after.
Elementary Instructional Coach B goes on to share that she has “shifted away from the whole
class or that whole group, site trainings, which doesn’t work in teaching.” Her goal was to target
specific individuals who had a desire to get on board with technology integration. When those
individuals are sought out, “they instantly become leaders of the site” according to Elementary
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 72
Instructional Coach A. The spotlight then shifts from the instructional coach, who models and
demonstrates, to the classroom teacher, who is given the chance to lead and serve as a different
voice sharing the same message. Often times, the elementary instructional coach is limited on
time, so according to Elementary Instructional Coach B, “targeting individuals and mentoring
them along the way is a much better route then everybody trained on it.”
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Interviewed middle school teachers
indicated that the hallway, lounge, parking lot, and quick conversations during lunchtime or
recess were opportunities for sharing learning colleague to colleague. Middle School Teacher A
shared, “[working with someone slightly better than you] kind of motivates you to want to know
more about that same topic.” He continued by stating,
I feel like, when I work with certain people and they do know more than I do, or they’re
willing to share some of that knowledge with me, I’ll go out of my way to research that,
and want to share it with other people, too.
Middle school respondents indicated that passion and interest level were factors that
influenced whether or not learning took place and was then passed onto other colleagues. Middle
School Instructional Coach A confirmed by stating the following:
It depends on what it is. If it’s something that they’re really passionate about, or that they
really like, or enjoy doing in their classroom, I think that they will share it. If they’re not,
then they’re kind of like, “Oh, that’s another thing that I’ve learned, but I’m not going to
use it.” It really depends.
When an individual teacher learns a technology tip, trick, or tool that he/she feels is
beneficial to others, they have a desire to share with their colleagues. Instructional coaches also
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 73
feel compelled to share their acquired learning with other educators. Middle School Instructional
Coach A shared a method for sharing. In her words,
I can only speak for myself, that, when I do learn something, I share it with all of my
educator friends. I write them personal emails, “Hey, guess what I found out. This is so
awesome.” I do it, personally. I think the more non-seasoned, veteran teachers, those
teachers, the ones who’ve been teaching for one to 10, 12 years, they’re more willing to
share versus some of the older teachers who aren’t. They’re like, “Oh, I’ve learned that,
but...” It kind of just ends there.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. It is necessary when sharing that
technology tools/applications have a direct benefit to classroom teaching and student learning or
the time spent exploring is nonexistent. Interviewed High School Teacher B expressed how the
technology training provided across the district is the “biggest waste of time,” as it does not
provide time to actually learn how to implement the applications. Thus, sharing informally with
colleagues has become the norm and a valuable use of time. High School Teacher A believes
“the more we can just share and work with our peers that that helps technology” and, as a result,
“teachers get more technologically savvy in incorporating in their classes more.” High School
Teacher B agreed stating, “you’d be amazed what you can learn standing in the parking lot
before you go home.”
Without an official time to share knowledge with colleagues, High School Teacher B
stated, “it’s [conversations regarding technology integration] got to be self-motivated, self-
initiated.” There are high school teachers who enjoy technology, and High School Teacher B
shared,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 74
You know, there’s teachers on campus who just love that stuff [technology tools]. They
get into it, they spend hours on their own time because they think it’s cool, and a lot of
them will come around and say, “Oh, you should use for, oh, that thing you’re doing, this
would be cool. You know, let’s go to lunch and I’ll tell you about it.” So, I think we get
more training in that strategy than anything official.
In conversing with high school teachers, instructional coaches were not viewed as valuable tools
to their learning process. Interviewed high school teachers expressed greater learning
experiences from collaborating with colleagues who shared the same passions and interests.
Grade Level/Department Meetings
Ninety-four percent of all surveyed K-12 classroom teachers selected “share at grade
level/department meetings” as a method for sharing acquired knowledge with colleagues. All of
the surveyed K-12 instructional coaches concurred that classroom teachers use grade
level/department meetings as a platform for sharing knowledge.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. When interviewed, elementary
teachers discussed working with grade level colleagues they referred to specific technology
tools/applications that they worked together on using. Elementary Teacher A shared she had
been using a technology application within her classroom that was previously shared by an
elementary instructional coach. She expressed the following regarding her method for sharing
learning during a grade level meeting:
We sat down with the two veteran teachers on our team that were like, “No way. I’m not
doing it.” I don’t think they’re...Actually, I know they’re still not using it, but we kind of
sat down with them a little more and explained more to them and tried to push them
along a little bit.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 75
Applications such as Canvas, Desmos, and Google Classroom were shared by elementary
teachers as technology tools utilized across their district. However, according to Elementary
Instructional Coach A, “the more teachers are exposed to it [the technology application] and just
hear about how great it is and how easy it is, I think that helps them a lot.” She went on to share,
One of our teachers here started it [technology application] and I like jumped on with her,
and then now another grade level is doing it. And then another grade level is interested.
So, I think just having other teachers trying things.
Two of the interviewed elementary classroom teachers spoke frequently about “us” as
they referred to their team members who tackled technology projects together. One of the
interviewed elementary teachers, Elementary Teacher B, shared that “they [grade level team
members] were asking for it [help with technology integration].” She went on to share,
I would say I share with my grade level, and, if anyone else was interested, I’d be happy
to share with them. We actually did share the paper slide videos last fall because we had
an opportunity at a staff meeting. They wanted us to bring some sort of technology piece
that we’ve done.
In addition to grade level sharing, opportunities for joint learning at staff meetings was
also mentioned. Elementary Instructional Coach A discussed how monthly staff meetings gave
teachers a chance to do a “quick check-in” or “share something interesting.”
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Timing is important when sharing
learning with colleagues and knowing when individuals are ready to take on new learning.
Middle School Instructional Coach A felt like she had “a lot of information to share, but not a lot
of people are there, or ready to want to receive that at the moment.” She went on to share that
“it’s always kind of a battle because I know that this a direction we should be moving in, but not
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 76
everybody is ready to receive it.” Middle School Teacher A stated, “I try as much as possible to
talk to teachers at other sites” and in his words,
I try to meet with colleagues who teach at my grade level at other sites or friends that
teach at other schools at my grade level so we can pow wow on what each other are doing
and how we’re doing it and get inspiration and encouragement from that way.
He indicated in further conversation that there are multiple places where one can go to
find tutorials for information, specifically YouTube. Sharing of information can take on various
forms, and he stated, “I would say that professional learning communities are your best friend,
whether they’re physical, meeting people, or some sort of digital or online environment.”
Additionally, he did mention that there are other places to go for information related to
technology besides a coach so that technology can be in implemented successfully.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. Sharing with colleagues at the high
school level takes place during department meetings or with grade level teams. Eighty-three
percent of surveyed high school classroom teachers report sharing at a grade level/department as
a method for sharing with colleagues. According to High School Teacher A, “We have a pretty
collaborative model on my campus, especially on my level, my 9th grade level.” In her words,
Sometimes we follow through and, and, do it, and, other times, it’s just one of those
things where you get in your own routine and, and, before you know, it the [time goes by]
and you never did it. You know? So, we definitely share. Whether we implement what
our colleagues have done, maybe not, but we definitely share.
Similarly, High School Teacher B shared, “we’ve got a really friendly, collaborative
group, at least in our department.” When teachers sit down with peers who are their friends, High
School Teacher A expressed that it “has a really positive impact” as they are just “teaching you
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 77
how to do something new.” Ironically, one of the interviewed high school teachers was moving
into the role of an instructional coach, and she stated that hoped to be a model for her peers.
Discussion
Instructional coaches across elementary, middle, and high school settings are in a position
to have a substantial impact on the level of technology integration within K-12 classrooms. All
K-12 classroom teachers also have the potential to support technology integration by sharing
acquired knowledge with colleagues. Application and program support were noted as heavily
supported areas by all K-12 instructional coaches and area where colleagues spent time sharing
and offering support to one another. Sharing with colleagues regardless of position has the
potential to transform teaching and learning across multiple classrooms. However, it became
evident during interviews that sharing with colleagues was not directly related to learning
acquired from working alongside an instructional coach. K-12 classroom teachers indicated, that
often, their learning occurred through informal conversations with colleagues and not in formal
training or meetings.
Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How have instructional coaches been beneficial to
elementary, middle, and high school teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational
technology?”
As discussed in the section on research question one, an instructional coach can play a
significant role in increasing or improving a teacher’s self-efficacy through a variety of coaching
strategies. One indicator of a coach’s significant role is the increase of a teacher’s belief in their
own capacity to affect student achievement.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 78
Partnership Approach Through Co-Teaching
Globally, school systems are implementing instructional coaching with a high degree of
success (Devine et al., 2013; Knight, 2007; Knight & van Niewerburgh, 2012; Kretlow et al.,
2012). This finding indicates that the partnership approach (Knight, 2007) is a model that works
well for elementary, middle school, and high school teachers. Interviews with teachers
participating in this study affirmed this finding. When using technology, teachers who partner
with instructional coaches find multiple ways to implement and utilize technology in the
classroom. Reportedly, co-teaching and in-class experiences with the coaches and teachers
working together to deliver instruction increases teacher self-efficacy.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. As elementary teachers begin
to implement different technology programs, they reported the value of having a partner
(instructional coach) there to guide them through particular lessons and activities. Elementary
Classroom Teacher B shared the following success with utilizing a specific technology program
within her classroom:
I would say either using paper slide videos have been super successful. My kids love
making them. We make videos. We do it in reading groups, and I can do it with all my
levels of kids and they all feel successful. They love making them. They love watching
them. Now, they ask to make them.
By focusing on the partnership approach through co-teaching, elementary teachers and students
demonstrated that they feel successful and show signs of increased self-efficacy by their
increased interest in the newly implemented programs.
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. The partnership approach,
according to the middle school teachers interviewed for this study, not only was important in
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 79
terms of collaborating and working together, but the technology integrated actually enhanced
what was taught by the teacher and the instructional coach at a much deeper level. Middle
School Classroom Teacher A shared the following success with utilizing a technology program
within their classroom:
We were studying climate change, and, so, climate change is so big, too hard to see...We
had multiple...simulations...on the computer that we used for them to kind of see how
does the Earth trap energy and how does it release energy? What keeps the heat or the
energy on the planet? Those were really great integrations because there’s just no way
they could’ve looked at that kind of stuff or experienced that outside of some sort of
simulated model because it’s just so big and heat is invisible and it helps make those
things visible.
Once the teacher witnessed the value of this partnership approach through the co-teaching
opportunity and what could be done using technology, the teacher was more willing to try new
things and, therefore, experience increased self-efficacy with the integration of technology.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. High school teachers interviewed
experienced similar situations with the partnership approach through co-teaching. One high
school teacher noted that sharing the space within the classroom allowed teachers to collaborate,
work together and experience co-teaching in their own setting while integrating technology.
High School Teacher A shared, “well, in the classroom, sometimes, I have other teachers come
in and observe a lesson that I am doing with technology...it is an option that teachers have.” High
School Teacher A demonstrated the collaborative and partnership approach to teaching and
learning that emerges with instructional coaches and willing teachers.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 80
Building Relationships by Establishing Trust Which Leads to Increased Confidence
Self-efficacy is rooted in part in an individual’s perception of their own capacity to be
successful based on previous experiences (Bandura, 1982). When interviewed, the teachers in
this study indicated that a key aspect of their development of this self-perception was
relationship-building with the coach. In other words, the coach and teacher relationship set the
conditions for teachers to explore and experience success. According to Sugar (2005), the level
of trust is a notable characteristic of an effective coaching relationship. The level of trust a
teacher shared with the instructional coach appears to be related to their willingness to take risks
and experiment with new techniques or strategies.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. Elementary School Teacher A
shared this about the instructional coaches at her site: “They were both just really our go to
people.” The idea of instructional coaches being the top sourced teachers when technology needs
arise speaks to the relationships that have been built within staffs. An additional strategy
mentioned by Elementary Instructional Coach B was when the instructional coach allowed
himself to be vulnerable and take risks in front of the teacher he was working with. By doing
this, the teacher was more willing to try something new and emulate the coach. Elementary
Instructional Coach B shared,
I think it helped their confidence, as I try to be vulnerable about my fails because I think,
if they see me as this techie person, which I don’t like that at all, and, if they see me
failing and frustrated, but I keep continuing to work through and use it [technology], then
I think they feel like they have the right to do so, too.
Through demonstrating everyday missteps and pitfalls, teachers were able to establish trust with
the instructional coach, thus strengthening the relationship.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 81
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Middle school teachers reported the
importance of a place to a relationship of trust with the instructional coach. A specific example
of a way to build trust in a teacher to instructional coach relationship is in a professional learning
community. Middle School Teacher A shared that “a professional learning community is your
best friend, whether they’re physical, meeting people or some sort of digital or online
environment.” Participating in professional learning communities allows the instructional coach
and teacher to build their relationship and trust, which, in turn, promotes the opportunity to take
risks and eventually increase self-efficacy.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. At the high school level, building a
relationship of trust is important, and teachers found it highly important to have a consistent
coach. High School Instructional Coach B stressed the importance of having the majority of
instructional coaches be the same person for an extended period of time, and of ensuring that
they [instructional coach and teacher] are comfortable with each other. The increased level of
comfort that the instructional coach and teacher have through building the relationship gives the
teacher confidence and raises self-efficacy. High School Teacher A stated, “If I compare myself
to others, I can do a little bit more than the basics. So, I’m a little bit above average, but I would
not call myself an expert.” When High School Instructional Coach B was specifically asked if
working alongside a teacher increased a teacher’s self-efficacy, the response was, “Yeah, I think
I’ve seen it with the people [teachers] that I have worked with.”
Time to Explore New and Useful Techniques for Technology Integration
Coaching as embedded professional development appears to be more successful when K-
12 instructional coaches help classroom teachers at all levels develop their ideas and share
resources. Interviews with K-12 classroom teachers and instructional coaches indicated that,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 82
when integrating technology, the greatest impact on teaching occurred when teachers
experimented and explored ideas in collaboration. In other words, the opportunity to individually
explore technology appeared to be as important as the direct training or exposure to skills
traditionally associated with professional development. Coaching leads to greater self-efficacy
and provides new and useful techniques and the time for teachers to explore their effectiveness.
(Kurbanoglu, 2003).
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. Elementary School Teacher A
expressed her willingness to try technology tools on her own and stated she “always tried useful
ideas [her] instructional coach shared with [her].” Specific examples of ways coaches do this are
by focusing on specific technology tools. Elementary Instructional Coach B stated,
One teacher, who’s a great teacher, but not using a lot of technology integration, reached
out to me and asked if I would show her how to do Google Forms, so they could vote for
student council online this year. I spent, probably, an hour and a half to two hours with
her, checking, testing, teaching her how to do that. I sat and guided her through it. I made
her do it all. I didn’t want to do it for her because that’s not my role. I think she
understands how Google Forms work now and is really excited to be able to use it.
Elementary School Teacher A expressed the need for a new way to not only use technology in
the classroom, but to also change an old system, or, rather, an old or outdated way of doing
things. Through the support of the elementary instructional coach, this elementary teacher was
willing to take a risk and try a different approach to utilizing technology within her classroom. If
the elementary instructional coach were not working alongside this teacher, it is possible that the
teacher would not be aware of the specific ways to use the technology tool or not have the time
to try the new method using technology.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 83
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. It is evident that, at the middle
school level, time to explore new and useful techniques for technology integration are equally as
important as at the elementary level. Instructional coaches not only provide explicit support in
order for teachers to try new things, but also direct instruction and time to experience what they
learn. Middle School Instructional Coach A presented an example:
I showed them [PE teachers] how to set up the whole PE department–going through one
course and how to invite the kids onto it. It took some time because I had to invite the
whole school into this one class, but it was fun. It was fun to figure out how to do it
because none of us knew how to do it before we sat down to figure it out. It took a while,
but the PE department’s really pleased with it.
In this instance, the instructional coach demonstrated not only a new technology tool, but also a
learning strategy for when teachers are unsure of how a tool works.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. High school teachers and high school
instructional coaches reported similar experiences as elementary and middle school instructional
coaches, especially when it comes to the importance of time to try and explore new technology
tools or applications. High School Teacher B stated that “we’ve had a great time in my prep
period, so 50 minutes of both of us guessing our way through a, you know, Google app thing that
I wanted to figure out.”
When High School Instructional Coach B was asked if it would have been possible to do
as much with technology without the support of an instructional coach, the response was, “Oh
no, we need instructional coaches. If an instructional coach can help one teacher, and, then, that
teacher can pay it forward and help another teacher, it’s a bit more organic.”
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 84
Increasing self-confidence through co-teaching, building of relationships, sharing useful
ideas, and supporting exploration while implementing technology are specific strategies utilized
across elementary, middle and high school levels. When teachers are positioned as novices and
told by experts which practices work best, the results are often poor (Knight & van
Nieuwerburgh, 2012). In a peer-based relationship, the delicate social balance of power is not
disrupted, and teachers are led to discover their own solutions (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh,
2012).
Discussion
The role of an instructional coach must encompass not only technology content and
skills, but also provide an inviting, empathetic, and patient environment for teachers to learn and
adopt new technologies. The key ingredient of a teacher-coach relationship, as Sugar (2005)
pointed out, is collaboration. Through interviews with instructional coaches and teachers at the
elementary, middle and high school levels, this study revealed that peer relationships,
collaborative learning and time allotted to learning new things seem to be essential in helping to
increase teacher self-efficacy.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “What measures do K-12 school districts use to
evaluate instructional coaches and technology integration?”
Coaching requires a certain set of skills, including content knowledge, leadership skills,
relationship-building, and communication (Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight, 2008). In order to
evaluate these skills and to ensure that the program is successful, researchers found that CUSD
utilizes end-of-the-year surveys, monthly meetings, and district lead coaches to hold the
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 85
instructional coaches accountable and evaluate technology integration. This process for
evaluation and accountability is the same for elementary, middle and high school.
End-of-the-Year Survey
At the conclusion of each year, instructional coaches received an electronic Google Form
to fill out. This form was from the district office and supplied through the principal. According to
Lead Instructional Coach, the survey was meant to help the district see what the needs are, what
instructional coaches did not receive for coaching support, what needed improvement, and what
each site might need in regards to support. Lead Instructional Coach also added that the survey
helped to wrap up the year so that the district could have the summer to make changes for the
following year. Lead Instructional Coach stated in the interview that the survey was a way for
the instructional coaches to share what they were doing throughout the year. Once the survey
was reviewed, the district used the feedback to implement new ideas. Lead Instructional Coach
reflected on the following:
For example, at one point, we made a change where we tried to say, “okay, try at your
site to say, if you have questions on these things, go to this person,” like a menu of
services almost between the two of them. The teachers kind of just would free for all and
ask the people they felt most comfortable asking. Then, that ended up getting changed to
where we tried to encourage principals to give [instructional coaches] time at the
meetings to kind of have a tech 5 minutes and kind of share information. There’s been
kind of an evolution of where they can get time in front of their staff.
The annual evaluation tool allowed the district to evolve their coaching program. At the
inception, the program consisted of one instructional coach per site. At the time of the
interviews, the program had two coaches per site along with district lead coaches for elementary,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 86
middle, and high school. Lead Instructional Coach stated that the principals receive a “job
description of what the instructional coach does and expectations of the instructional coach, and,
then, we ask the principals. We say, “who is your instructional coach going to be this year?” At
the beginning of each school year, the district asked each principal to identify the coach for that
year. The instructional coaches had a choice to stay in their position. Some sites that consist of
staff with new teachers switched off every year due to interest in the position.
The library media technicians also took on the position of instructional coach. The end-
of-the-year surveys reported that teachers preferred that the instructional coach be a classroom
teacher. Lead Instructional Coach stated that the teachers felt that the library media technicians
did not understand the pedagogy because they were not in the classroom every day. The program
was, then, modified to include only certificated staff as an instructional coach.
Monthly Meetings
According to an interview with Lead Instructional Coach, each month, the district held
meetings for the instructional coaches. This is a way for the district to have face time with the
coaches to hear what was going on at each site. The meetings were held to provide professional
development for the coaches and to have a dialogue about what is happening at each site. These
meetings gave a space for the instructional coaches to report what was going on at their site, and,
if an instructional coach told the district that their open lab hour coaching had not been well
attended, then they are able to support them. Lead Instructional Coach stated,
If you have zero people showing up, technically, I’ll give you that hour for opening up
your lab for an hour, but I’d rather you spend that hour doing something else, make a
tutorial. Make a flip teaching piece. There’s a lot of different things we can have you
guys do, and it would help our district and help us.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 87
The monthly meetings with the instructional coaches were a way for the district to check
in and evaluate how things were going at each site. These meetings allow for them to give the
instructional coach insight on what to do if they are not feeling like they are being effective.
Lead Instructional Coaches
After a few years of the instructional coach program, Lead Instructional Coach shared
that the district added lead instructional coaches and recently hired Teachers on Special
Assignments (TOSAs) to take the lead as instructional coaches. These lead coaches trained the
site instructional coaches on a monthly basis. According to Lead Instructional Coach, the district
was able to pass the vision, goals, and expectations to the lead instructional coaches, and, in turn,
they pass it on to the site instructional coaches. Lead Instructional Coach stated, “Now, the lead
TOSAs will be running the professional development and modeling the coaching.” There were
three district level TOSAs, and one supported elementary, then another middle school, and the
other high school.
Evaluation Tool
During the interviews, the instructional coaches and classroom teachers were asked the
following question: Does your administrator or other district personnel evaluate the work you do
with your instructional coach/teacher? Instructional coaches at all levels stated that they were
evaluated by a survey at the end of the year. The teachers were unsure of how the instructional
coaches were evaluated. Elementary School Teacher A shared, “There are a lot of surveys and
stuff when it comes to technology, but, honestly, not specifically with our instructional coaches.”
Elementary School Teacher B stated, “Honestly, sometimes the district sends [a survey] to the
principal, and, then, he sends it out and I’m not sure where it originates. I think we might have
filled one out on this, but I’m not one hundred percent sure.” Middle School Teacher A shared:
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 88
I got to be honest, I’ve never measured the effectiveness of my coach. I have no idea. I
know they ask us to report our hours because I took the [instructional coach] position this
year, but, other than that, I don’t know if there are any measures of effectiveness. I have
zero idea.
In an interview, High School Teacher B shared the following:
Put it this way, I’ve never gotten a survey. Maybe they exist, and, and you’re supposed to
go in and, and, you know, initiate giving that feedback, and I just didn’t realize that and
haven’t it done it, but I’ve never been requested feedback, so I don’t know.
According to Table 11, 14.29% of classroom teachers thought that the work done with the
instructional coach was evaluated, and 85.71% of the classroom teachers thought that it was not
evaluated. Table 9 also shows that 50% of the instructional coaches thought the work done with
the classroom teachers was evaluated, and 50% thought that it was not.
Table 11
Quantitative Data: Is the Work Done With an Instructional Coach Evaluated?
Is the Work Done With an Instructional
Coach Evaluated?
Yes No Total
Reported by Classroom Teachers # % # % # %
Elementary School Classroom Teachers 1 12.50 7 87.50 8 100.00
Middle School Classroom Teachers 0 0.00 3 100.00 3 100.00
High School Classroom Teachers 2 20.00 8 80.00 10 100.00
Total 3 14.29 18 85.71 21 100.00

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 89
Table 11, continued
Is the Work Done With an Instructional
Coach Evaluated?
Yes No Total
Reported by Instructional Coaches # % # % # %
Elementary School Instructional Coaches 3 50.00 3 50.00 6 100.00
Middle School Instructional Coaches 3 60.00 2 40.00 5 100.00
High School Instructional Coaches 0 0.00 1 100.00 1 100.00
Total 6 50% 6 50% 12 100.00
Total 9 27.27 24 72.72 33 100.00

According to the Lead Instructional Coach, the instructional coaches were paid a stipend
for their position, and one way the district held the coaches accountable was by having them
report their hours. The hours being counted were the monthly meeting hours and monthly open
lab hours. Elementary Instructional Coach A stated, “We offer monthly open labs. We have a
time an hour after school where we are just here, and, then, teachers can come in and ask any
sorts of questions.” The instructional coaches might also lead professional development or
tutorials on district technology during these monthly meetings or open lab times.
Discussion
Sugar (2005) found that a technology coach or mentor program can provide individual
attention to teachers to help them overcome initial obstacles in learning new technologies.
According to Sugar (2005), the instructional coach needs to be knowledgeable in technology, but
also needs to be inviting, empathetic and patient in order to grow the important ingredient which
is the teacher-coach relationship and their collaboration. The end-of-the-year survey went out to
the instructional coach only. If the classroom teachers received this survey, they would have
been able to provide feedback on how they felt that instructional coach was doing.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 90
Instructional coaching can be most successful when incorporating strategies such as
modeling, pre- and post- conferences and observation (Cornett and Knight, 2008; Gallucci et al.,
2010; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). In fact, the coaching model itself can vary
significantly, yet most researchers agreed that instructional coaching utilizes a sort of cycle
(Figure 2) that includes a pre-conference, modeling, and a post-conference (Devine et al., 2013;
Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight and & Nieuwerburgh, 2012). According to Lead Instructional
Coach, monthly lab hours allowed for teachers to get quick support or even a quick tutorial. The
lab hours did not provide an adequate amount of time for the instructional coach to meet one-on-
one with teachers and do not follow a traditionally successful model of coaching with a pre, post-
conference, and observation.
Research Question Five
The fifth research question asked, “Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who
work with instructional coaches experience increased self-efficacy with educational
technology?”
Fullan and Hargreaves (2000) stated that mentoring programs should transform teaching
into a true learning experience. In the quantitative survey, elementary, middle, and high school
classroom teachers were asked whether or not they experienced an increase in self-efficacy with
educational technology after having worked with an elementary, middle, or high school
instructional coach. Avalos (2011) suggested that the range of professional growth was vastly
different among individuals depending on the diverse forms of professional development as well
as on established traditions, cultures, policies, and/or school conditions.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 91
Professional Growth and Increased Self-Efficacy
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. Bandura (1997) stated that one
of the primary influences on self-efficacy is physiological and affective states, both somatic and
emotional. Elementary School Teacher A stated that, before working with an elementary
instructional coach, her knowledge of technology on a scale from one to ten, ten being the
highest level of knowledge, was a six. After working one-on-one with an elementary
instructional coach, Elementary School Teacher A reported, “my comfort level has gone up
because I know they [instructional coaches] are available.”
Elementary School Teacher B responded with the following when asked to rate
knowledge of technology before interacting with an instruction coach, “I would say I was like a
four.” Having spent time working one-on-one with an instructional coach, Elementary School
Teacher B shared she would rate herself as a six or seven. The level of comfort experienced by
interviewed elementary school teachers after having spent time working with an instructional
coach suggests an increase in self-efficacy with technology.
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Classroom teachers across K-12
settings may experience professional growth and an increase in self-efficacy by working within a
professional learning community. Middle School Instructional Coach C suggested that, if done
right, professional learning communities could build teacher confidence. In her words,
I think that having a liaison or having someone within the department take someone
under their wing and work side by side with them, and I think that’s what PLCs
[professional learning communities] are for. If done correctly, it definitely builds the
confidence of the entire team that they’re all doing something right. Yes, I absolutely do.
That’s important.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 92
Middle School Instructional Coach C noted that teachers can grow their knowledge by simply
working with a liaison who is more technologically advanced and that it will have an effect on
the entire professional learning community.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. Although interviewed high school
instructional coaches perceived that teachers experienced increased self-efficacy with
educational technology, interview responses from high school classroom teachers led the
researchers to believe that their beliefs in their own capabilities range from minimal to
significant gains when it came to their skillset and professional growth. High School Teacher A
stated, “I would say since working with the tech mentors [instructional coaches]. I’ve gotten
much better, um, maybe a B++, you know.” High School Teacher B responded that the level of
knowledge that a high school instructional coach had to offer was not much more than what she
already knew. However she had a positive experience. In her words,
What I’ve noticed is that they’re [instructional coaches] fellow teachers who are tech
savvy, um, and I’ve found them to be somewhat more capable than I am, but not by
much. We’ve had a great time in my prep period, so 50 minutes of both of us guessing
our way through a, you know, Google App thing that I wanted to figure out.
Collaboration and Teacher Support
One source of technical support that all K-12 classrooms teachers had on a school
campus was a Help Desk. The turnaround on help desk tickets was typically based on what IT
deemed a priority. Moreover, the primary function of IT was to address hardware-connectivity
issues rather than troubleshooting education technology with teachers. High school instructional
coaches, on the other hand, were tasked with supporting the implementation of education
technology and instruction by collaborating alongside high school classroom teachers.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 93
Interview responses from elementary, middle, and high school instructional coaches and
classrooms teachers indicated that they experienced professional growth and an increase in self-
efficacy when they collaborate in small group departmental settings, one-on-one opportunities,
and in casual interactions with colleagues.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. On many occasions,
elementary instructional coaches lent themselves to elementary classrooms teachers as an
alternative to submitting a help desk ticket to troubleshoot technical issues with educational
technology and, thus, provide an immediate resolution. Elementary Instructional Coach A
stated, “I think it is just beneficial to have somebody to talk to about things and ask quick
questions without having to email help desk or like somebody at the district.”
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Fullan (2006) stated that positive
collaborative cultures, in educational change, aid in the sustainment of professional development.
In other words, if more and more leaders are generated who think and act with the bigger picture
in mind, and there is a desire for better learning environments, superb professional learning will
be accomplished. (Hargreaves, 2000). Middle School Instructional Coach C remarked on the
increase in teacher self-efficacy when they had collaborative support. Middle School
Instructional Coach C stated,
Absolutely. I think that’s natural when you feel like you’re being supported by another
teacher when you’re working alongside them, it validates what you’re doing and makes
you feel good about the work that you’re doing as opposed to working in isolation which
so many teachers do.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. According to a high school classroom
teacher, collaborative efforts at grade level/department meetings and informal conversations with
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 94
colleagues were where the majority of professional growth occurred. Table 8 shows that teacher
collaborative efforts and support in the form of professional learning networks occurred 43.75%
of the time. However, it was the informal conversations with colleagues where High School
Teacher B experienced professional growth. In her words, “We’ve got a really friendly,
collaborative group, at least in our department. Uh, you’d be amazed what you can learn standing
in the parking lot before you go home.”
Exposure and Motivation
Interviews from elementary, middle, and high school teachers and instructional coaches
revealed that CUSD had different forms of exposure to technology training that contributed to
the professional growth of teachers, such as district professional development and site-level
faculty meetings. Elementary, middle, and high school teacher respondents indicated that
increased exposure to educational technology led to an increase in teacher self-efficacy in
implementing educational technology in the classroom.
Interview and survey data indicated that, overall, CUSD K-12 classroom teachers and
instructional coaches were motivated to work together with educational technology
implementation and planning. Table 7 shows that 100% of elementary, middle, and high school
teachers experienced a level of effectiveness and professional growth when they were engaged in
learning with an instructional coach.
Elementary school teachers and instructional coaches. At the Elementary level,
teacher exposure to educational technology built on their existing skillset of using web-based
programs and tools. Elementary School Teacher B stated,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 95
The district has so many trainings about Google Classroom and Google apps and stuff.
The more teachers are exposed to it and just hear about how great it is and how easy it is,
I think that helps them a lot.
Once elementary teachers were exposed through district trainings, Elementary
Instructional Coach B shared that instructional coaches held open lab hours and “actually go into
classrooms” and offer embedded professional development. A motivating factor that contributed
to keeping elementary teachers engaged in the learning process was when elementary
instructional coaches met in a one-on-one setting. Elementary School Instructional Coach B
stated, “I see people that I’ve worked with in that more small grouped one-to-one role a lot more
engaged in using technology than the ones that have been all staff.”
Middle school teachers and instructional coaches. Early exposure to new technology
applications, such as learning management systems, seemed to increase their use among
teachers. Middle School Teacher A stated, “Even at the beginning of the year as we’re trying to
move every teacher to Canvas [learning management system], I’ve had the opportunity to sit
down with a number of teachers and walk them through how to get their Canvas started.” This
teacher demonstrated that, through her exposure to the new technology, she felt proficient in its
use and motivated to share it with colleagues. Middle School Instructional Coach B stated that
being available for teachers during their prep period or after school, provided a time for middle
school teachers to ask questions about technology. In her words, “If anyone had a question about
something they were trying to do, and they couldn’t get it to perform or they needed extra help,
they could come to me”.
High school teachers and instructional coaches. A motivating and positive experience
for teachers was when they were learning new skills and/or were leading fellow colleagues and
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 96
friends in training sessions. High School Teacher A stated, “I do think the more we can just
share and work with our peers that that helps technology, you know. Teachers get more
technologically savvy in incorporating in their classes more.” Interview respondents suggested
that teacher interaction with instructional coaches not only helped to increase teacher self-
efficacy, but also motivated teachers to share what they learned with fellow staff members. With
more teachers willing to be instructional coaches, there is an increase in self-efficacy in teachers
as well as a growth in network support on a school campus. High School Teacher A stated,
The more people we can get to be a mentor, the more technology we’ll get into the
classrooms. We just have to have the experience. I think it’s [working with an
instructional coach] had a really positive impact on me personally.
Again, teacher exposure to new strategies and technology not only had an impact on the
individual teacher, but also on their motivation to spread the learning through sharing with
colleagues.
Discussion
When looking at the CUSD instructional coaching model, dialogue and praxis, two of the
seven principles of instructional coaching from Devine et al. (2013) appeared to stand out.
Devine et al. (2013) described dialogue as individuals who engaged in exploration and
conversation. Learning together creates an open and authentic dialogue so that both parties
engage in reflection about the material to be learned and applied. Praxis occurs after reflection
and planning, and the core of the approach is about putting learning into practice in everyday
working life (Devine et al., 2013). The focus of instructional coaching is to help teachers to
apply their ideas in the classroom as those ideas are being learned (Devine et al., 2013). Of the
K-12 teachers surveyed, 97.75% were motivated and engaged with educational technology when
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 97
professional development occurred in small settings such as department meetings or in one-on-
one opportunities with instructional coaches. Gains in teacher self-efficacy varied depending on
a teacher’s knowledge base and exposure to technology. Additionally, an increase in professional
learning networking opportunities allow instructional coaches and teachers to collaborate and
assess growth in their knowledge base and self-efficacy. This created opportunities for, as
Knight (2007) said, knowledge transfer, knowledge development, and human interaction: the
partnership approach to instructional coaching.
Emerging Themes
Four themes emerged from this case study. The first consisted of instructional coaching
models and the ways in which a district selects to structure the model for supporting teachers
with technology implementation. CUSD structured the coaching model with a classroom teacher
as the instructional coach. This limited the amount of time the instructional coach was available
to support teachers. Second, teacher willingness to utilize instructional coaches appeared to be a
problem. Instructional coaches had windows of time available for teachers to gain support.
However, opportunities are optional. Not all K-12 teachers take advantage of the opportunity to
work with an instructional coach on their respective campus. In fact, only 61.54% of elementary,
42.86% of middle school and 40% of high school teachers surveyed stated that they had worked
one-on-one with an instructional coach (Table 6). Overall, 46.67% of all teachers (K-12)
surveyed in CUSD stated that they had worked directly with an instructional coach (Table 6).
Teachers may be unaware of what they do not know; therefore, seeking support does not become
a priority. Teachers had the option to work with a coach. Therefore, when coaching is optional, it
may not be a priority for teachers to seek support.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 98
A third emerging theme is accountability and evaluation of instructional coaching
models. Surveys were a common tool for measuring the effectiveness of the coaching model.
However, the surveys only supplied data from the instructional coach and not teacher needs.
According to the teacher interviews at the elementary, middle and high school levels, teachers
were largely not even aware of the survey and did not participate in giving feedback about their
instructional coach. Further accountability and evaluation may give insight on whether or not an
instructional coach is effective or not. A final emerging theme is the idea of professional capital
and the ways in which school districts are investing within their own people to build capacity.
The fifth chapter begins with an overview of the study’s purpose, research questions, and
methodology utilized during this case study. Next, a presentation of findings and conclusions
broken into instructional levels (elementary, middle, and high school) is given. Implications of
the study, recommendations for further research in this topic as well as limitations to the study
are also presented. Finally, the conclusion briefly summarized the study and its overall findings.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 99
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
Authors: Kristy Andre, Amanda Heineman, Adam Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren
Steinmann
5

Chapters One through Four of this study review the issues related to educating teachers in
implementing educational technology into the school setting. Chapter Two presents a review of
the literature related to 21st century skills, self-efficacy, instructional coaching, professional
development, and educational technology. Chapter Three presents the framework for the case
study of CUSD. This case study examined the instructional coaching program in elementary,
middle, and high schools across the district, incorporating surveys and interviews with both
instructional coaches and classroom teachers. Chapter Four presents the findings from this study
as it correlated to the five research questions. Chapter Five presents a summary of those findings,
along with conclusions drawn and implications in the area of study.
The increasingly prominent presence of educational technology available to families and
schools led to a transformation of both teaching and learning. As teaching became more complex
with the addition of new technology, the science of teaching and development of informational
technologies set challenges for both novice and veteran teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000).
Now, more than ever, it is easier for teachers to collaborate and utilize resources for teaching
using educational technology and the internet. Additionally, the expectation for teachers to
collaborate and use educational technology on a daily basis is increasing (ISTE, 2010). However,
when students have constant access to the internet and information, teachers may feel lost in their

5
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this
project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those
listed.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 100
new role (Shepherd & Reeves, 2012). Teachers unfamiliar with new strategies and techniques
with technology may avoid using it in the classroom altogether.
As stated previously, the Department of Education’s 2010 National Educational
Technology Plan stated, “Educators must be more than information experts; they must be
collaborators in learning, seeking new knowledge and constantly acquiring new skills alongside
their students” (US DOE, 2010). In order to meet this need, some school districts developed an
instructional coaching program to help support and educate teachers through embedded
professional development. Instructional coaching, “provides teachers with individualized,
continuous, and extended support from a more knowledgeable other” (Teemant, 2013, p. 581).
Instructional coaches working to support teachers in educational technology can provide
application ideas, support, and strategies for using new technology in the classroom. This support
from a more knowledgeable peer can positively affect the perceived ease of use of the
technology, thus increasing teacher self-efficacy (Davis et al., 1989; Shabani et al., 2010). If a
teacher does not possess self-efficacy with the technology, no matter how useful it is, it is still
likely that it will not be utilized in the classroom (Ertmer, 1999). Therefore, the support of an
instructional coach can prove crucial to the successful implementation of technology.
This fifth chapter provides a contextualized summary of the significant findings related to
the five research questions from the data reported in Chapter Four. Following the findings,
further recommendations for study will be detailed.
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this case study was to examine the relationship between instructional
coaching with educational technology as embedded 21st century professional development and
the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes. While there have been several studies on the impact
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 101
of 21st century teaching and learning as well as technology in the classroom, little data exists to
support instructional coaching and its impact on teacher self-efficacy.
Purpose of the Study
The findings from the research provided information to understand the role that
instructional coaches play in development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of
district-wide educational technology in California K-12 public schools.
The study also sought to uncover types of instructional coaching models that are most
effective for districts as well as the logistics of using coaching to support district-wide
technology initiatives.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers perceive their professional growth
with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
2. How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with an instructional
coach share what they have learned with colleagues?
3. How have instructional coaches been beneficial to elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational technology?
4. What measures do K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional coaches and
technology integration?
5. Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who work with instructional coaches
experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology?

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 102
Methodology
A mixed-methods design was used to answer the research questions. The qualitative data
were collected by using the case study format. Interviews were conducted with eight K-12
instructional coaches and five K-12 classroom teachers who receive coaching in order to find
information that can not be observed and to provide answers to the research questions.
Quantitative data was collected through a digital survey that was completed by 12 K-12
instructional coaches and 58 K-12 classroom teachers.
Findings
Research Question One
Research question one asked, “How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers
perceive their professional growth with educational technology as a result of working alongside
an instructional coach?”
Elementary school findings. The research found that elementary school teachers who
worked alongside an instructional coach found the instructional coach-teacher partnership to be a
significant benefit to their professional growth with the integration of educational technology.
This finding echoes the research of Vygotsky (1978), Galucci et al. (2010), and Cornett and
Knight (2008). Shabani et al. (2010) summarized the benefit of the coach-teacher relationship by
explaining that, when a learner attempts a new or difficult task but has a capable peer working
alongside them to jointly complete the task, they will ultimately be more successful and
independent in the future. The instructional coaches’ presence provided embedded ongoing
support, the opportunity to take risks and a safety net for trying new things. In addition, the
ability for the instructional coach to model failure was revealed to be an important factor in the
teacher and coach relationship for elementary teachers. This was due to the fact that it
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 103
eliminated the fear of failure for teachers. This, in turn, helped to bolster self-efficacy for the
teachers.
Middle school findings. The survey responses indicated that only 15.5% of all teacher
respondents were middle school teachers and that 42.86% of middle school respondents had
worked one-on-one with an instructional coach (Table 6). This revealed that middle school
teachers sought the assistance of an instructional coach at a far lower rate than their elementary
and high school counterparts. The reasons for these numbers may vary, but they affect the
teachers’ pursuit, or lack thereof, of what Fullan and Hargreaves (2000) refer to as collegial
professionalism, or the working and learning relationship established with a teaching colleague.
While it was demonstrated that middle school teachers seemed to take advantage of the
instructional coaching opportunity in CUSD at a lower rate than elementary or high school
levels, the teachers who did work with coaches found the partnership to be beneficial. Though
the fear of failure with new technology or instructional practices was apparent with teachers,
instructional coaches utilized peer modeling and coaching to help lessen fear and anxiety, thus
helping to raise teacher self-efficacy.
High school findings. The case study found that high school teachers in CUSD who
worked with instructional coaches found that the partnership was beneficial. Research on the
models of coaching, mentoring, and in-service models have revealed that authentic professional
development aligned to long-term initiatives sets the stage for deeper cognition and learning of
teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000; Kretlow et al., 2011; Slepkov, 2008). High school teachers
appreciated the peer relationship due to the fact that the instructional coaches were teachers at
their site. This seemed to lessen anxiety or discomfort and made the coaches seem more
accessible. However, this embedded role seemed to be difficult to balance for the instructional
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 104
coaches between their teaching responsibilities and coaching duties. Interviews conducted during
this study revealed that high school teachers who worked with coaches desired more time and
direct coaching to master new technology skills.
Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “How do elementary, middle, and high school teachers
who work with an instructional coach share what they have learned with colleagues?”
Elementary school findings. It was found through research that elementary instructional
coaches provide classroom teachers with support in understanding technology-related tools. As
evidenced in the findings, informal conversations within grade level teams focus on application
of the technology tools into the classroom setting. When an elementary teacher acquires new
information from an instructional coach, he/she shares openly one-on-one with colleagues or at
staff meetings. The discourse between colleagues, thus, focuses on specific uses of technology
tools that can have an impact on student learning. The results of this study aligned with
Hargreaves’ (2000) findings that, if individuals desire better learning environments for students,
then it is necessary to invest and create superb professional learning and working conditions for
teachers. On the basis of these findings, it appears that opportunities for elementary classroom
teachers to apply learning gained by working alongside an instructional coach are valuable to the
use and frequency of technology tools within the classroom setting.
Middle school findings. It was found through research that informal conversations
between colleagues are a popular method of sharing acquired learning between middle school
teachers and instructional coaches. As evidenced in the findings, these conversations often serve
as an extension of district level training and revolve around troubleshooting with technology
applications. As middle school teachers departmentalize into their specific subject area, the
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 105
sharing begins to be limited within their own department. Middle school teachers are less likely
to share at staff meetings partly because the teachers are more focused on how the technology
tool works for their specific discipline and unable to see how it can apply across disciplines.
Findings are consistent with Fullan (2006), who stated that sustaining professional development
requires an investment to develop positive collaborative cultures, strategies, and training.
High school findings. District coordinated professional development opportunities which
focus on the learning of specific technology tools are ineffective for high school classroom
teachers. Simultaneously, learning acquired through interactions with high school instructional
coaches was also less effective than reported by elementary and middle school teachers.
Department and grade level meetings serve as a sharing space; however informal conversations
in the parking lot tend to produce heightened levels of learning. On the basis of the findings, it
appears that high school classroom teachers share their acquired learning informally with like-
minded colleagues who are equally passionate about the use of technology tools within their
respected discipline. The high school teachers who engaged in informal conversations were
significantly more successful trying to implement technology into their classrooms.
Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “How have instructional coaches been beneficial to
elementary, middle, and high school teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational
technology?”
Elementary school findings. Researchers concurred that instructional coaching is
implemented worldwide with a high degree of success (Devine et al., 2013; Knight, 2007;
Knight & van Niewerburgh, 2012; Kretlow et al., 2012). Findings suggest that instructional
coaches provide a partner to engage teachers in collaborative risk-taking as well as building of
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 106
relationships with classroom teachers. Trust was a significant element that can, thus, be
developed between teacher and coach, which leads to an increase in teacher self-efficacy with
educational technology. On the basis of the findings, the role of an elementary instructional
coach encompasses not only technology content and skills, but provides an inviting, empathetic,
and patient environment for teachers to learn and adopt new technologies at their own pace. In
CUSD, elementary instructional coaches had their own classroom responsibilities and were,
therefore, aware of the demands placed upon classroom teachers. Knowing this, instructional
coaches provide ongoing support, guidance, and an environment where the teachers feel safe to
take risks. Findings show that 70% of surveyed elementary teachers reported having an
instructional coach to be extremely or very effective. This could indicate that the partnership
approach (Knight, 2007) is a model that works well for elementary classroom teachers.
Middle school findings. At the middle school level, the role of the instructional coach is
to provide a safe, risk-taking environment while also striving to build capacity. Hargreaves
(2000) contended that, in the 21st century, teaching requires the ability to work with diverse
communities under escalated pressures and demands. Findings align with the work of
Hargreaves, pointing to how the demands related to technology integration can be stressful.
However, by building trust through collaboration and participating in professional learning
communities, middle school instructional coaches and teachers find it less stressful when
integrating technology. Research suggests that, whether instructional coaches and middle school
teachers meet in a physical space or online, it is extremely important to have the space and the
time to meet in order to develop confidence. On the basis of the findings, middle school
instructional coaches use professional learning communities as a place to establish trust and
provide support with planning lessons and integrating technology into those specific lessons.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 107
High school findings. Findings indicate that high school instructional coaches and
teachers found trust building to be an important aspect of the teacher-coach relationship.
Additionally, time to collaborate was found to be a significant aspect of relationship-building.
These findings align with the work of Sugar (2005), who pointed out that the key ingredient of a
teacher-coach relationship is collaboration. In addition to trust and collaboration, it was found
that increasing confidence, sharing of useful ideas, and supporting time to explore while
implementing technology are specific strategies high school instructional coaches utilize in a
partnership approach with their teachers.
Research Question Four
Research question four asked, “What measures do K-12 school districts use to evaluate
instructional coaches and technology integration?”
K-12 school district findings. It was found that elementary, middle, and high school
instructional coaches in CUSD completed a digital survey at the conclusion of the school year.
Data was, thus, used at the district level to evaluate the coaching model and make adjustments to
ensure that the vision and expectations were met. Findings indicated that principals took an
active role in distributing a digital survey sent from the district level to instructional coaches.
Elementary, middle, and high school instructional coaches were an essential part of the
evaluation process and participated in giving feedback on instructional coaches. However,
research suggested that this survey was cited at an inconsistent basis. Interviews with
instructional coaches and classroom teachers at every level suggested that regular feedback
should be an essential element of accountability and evaluation of instructional coaching models.
According to Knight (2009), “time is the single most powerful way to increase the
effectiveness of coaches.” In CUSD, instructional coaches were expected to have open lab hours
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 108
for four hours a month in order to support teachers. It was found that regular feedback on the
effectiveness of the open lab hours was given at monthly coaching meetings from the perspective
of the instructional coach. Additionally, an end-of-the-year survey was found to be given to each
instructional coach. As evidenced in the findings, classroom teachers across grade levels reported
in the interviews that they were not sure if a survey existed.
Research Question Five
Research question five asked, “Do elementary, middle, and high school teachers who
work with instructional coaches experience increased self-efficacy with educational
technology?”
Elementary school findings. It was found through research that elementary school
teachers who work with an instructional coach experience an increase in self-efficacy.
Kurbanoglu (2003) stated that individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting
information primarily from their previous experience. When given the opportunity to build their
knowledge in educational technology, teachers become more engaged with implementing new
teaching strategies. Additionally, it was found that, the more teachers are exposed to using web-
based tools and programs, the more they build their confidence. According to instructional
coaches, research showed that in a voluntary open lab approach to collaboration, one-on-one
settings are most beneficial for teacher increased self-efficacy. Finally, elementary teacher
engagement in the learning process is increased when instructional coaches support teachers
within their classrooms.
Middle school findings. It was found through the research that self-efficacy among
middle school teachers increases as they become proficient in new technology. In addition, the
early exposure to technology contributes to an increase in professional capital among middle
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 109
school teachers. Research found that middle school teachers are also more likely to utilize
technology in their classroom when they know that instructional coaches are readily available as
a support system. Hu et al. (2003) stated the importance of administrators to nurture positive
communities where technology is established and also supported by helping teachers gain the
knowledge and experience they need in order to implement technology effectively.
High school findings. It was found that high school teacher motivation increases when
they are able to share their learned skills with colleagues. Research indicated that working with
instructional coaches increases self-efficacy in teachers. As teachers become more confident in
their acquired skills, they are more likely to share their skills with peers and/or become
encouraged to pursue the role of an instructional coach. Kurbanoglu (2003) suggested that there
is a close link between attitudes and experience and the attainment of self-efficacy. Building
teacher capacity led to an increase in teacher motivation that permeates the school professional
climate as evidenced in the findings.
Implications
This study has significant implications for school districts that utilized instructional
coaches or look to hire instructional coaches, school districts that currently or aim to integrate
higher levels of instructional technology, such as laptops or tablets, into the classroom, and
school board members who have to approve funding for instructional coaches, technology
upgrades, and devices. The study adds to the body of existing knowledge by identifying the
connection between instructional coaching and the impact it has on teacher self-efficacy in
elementary, middle and high school level classes.
1. The data from this study suggested that instructional coaches at all levels had limited
amount of time to work with classroom teachers because they, too, were full-time
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 110
classroom teachers. School districts looking to implement an instructional coaching
model should evaluate the impact that part-time versus full-time instructional coaches
could have on their district.
2. The data presented in this study suggested that limited numbers of teachers at all levels
worked with an instructional coach even though every school site had access to a coach.
An application or selection process should be considered by school districts in order to
ensure that teachers are active participants in the enrollment/application process.
3. Teachers being coached by an instructional coach at all levels did not indicate that they
were involved in a coaching model that included pre- and post- conferences, modeling,
and observation (Cornett and Knight, 2008; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012; Gallucci
et al., 2010). School districts could benefit from studying the implementation of a
coaching cycle to allow for an instructional coach to fully support classroom teachers
through inquiry.
4. Evaluation and accountability need to be clear and established in an instructional
coaching program at all levels. Surveys and interviews for both classroom teachers and
instructional coaches provide an opportunity to gather ideas and perceptions around the
effectiveness of the coaching model.
5. Teachers self-efficacy and perceived ease of use with educational technology is increased
through additional professional growth opportunities outside the classroom and can be
seen across all levels. These might include leading professional development meetings
throughout the year, educational technology centered conferences, or an end-of-year
instructional practice showcase.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 111
Recommendations for Future Research
In order to gain further clarity on the relationship between instructional coaching with
educational technology and the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes, the following suggestions
are made for future study:
1. The study focused on a case study of one school district in California. The sample could
be increased to include more school districts in the state and school districts in different
states.
2. This study looks at a district with a large number of instructional coaches who are full-
time teachers and coach in addition to their daily teaching responsibilities. Researchers
should investigate districts that employ full-time instructional coaches who are out of the
classroom.
3. A follow-up study with the participants from this study should be conducted to determine
if perspectives change over time as growth and improvements are made to the
instructional coaching program.
4. This study looked at one school district across all levels, K-12. Researchers should
investigate multiple school districts, specifically studying one level, either elementary,
middle, or high.
Limitations
The primary limitation associated with this study was due to time constraints. Scheduling
time with full-time teachers as opposed to the flexibility of full-time instructional coaches made
the qualitative data limited because of the hectic schedules of full-time teachers who also serve
as instructional coaches after school. Time constraints prevented the addition of survey data
because the survey was given to instructional coaches and teachers at the end of the school year
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 112
and was extended over the summer and into the next school year. These particular parts of the
year can be very busy for teachers and could prevent them from completing the survey.
An additional limitation was the number of instructional coaches and teachers who were
interviewed across the levels. The five classroom teachers and eight instructional coaches who
were interviewed brought insight into the relationship between instructional coaching with
educational technology and the increase of self-efficacy. However, additional interviews would
further the understanding of the study.
Conclusion
Successful implementation of technology across K-12 school districts and inside
classrooms relies on the support of instructional coaches. Through embedded 21st century
professional development, instructional coaches have the ability to enhance and build teacher
self-efficacy. In CUSD, data showed that not all teachers take advantage of the opportunity to
interact one-on-one with an instructional coach. However, the findings suggest that CUSD
teachers who worked with a coach largely saw an increase in their self-efficacy with using
technology effectively in the classroom and viewed coaching as both beneficial and effective.
While positive effects of coaching were observed in elementary, middle school, and high school
teachers, there were varying levels of satisfaction among the teachers. Most noticeably, middle
school teacher participation was lower than other levels, while high school teachers’ belief that
instructional coaches are effective was lowest (see Table 6 and Table 7).
As shown through research and data collection, there are a variety of factors that add to
the value of an instructional coaching model. These include whether the coach is working full or
part time, the process or model employed by the coach when working with teachers, and
accountability and evaluation of instructional coaching programs. At the time of this study,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 113
CUSD employed a part-time coaching program where coaches were still full-time teachers,
which may affect its overall success, impact, and effectiveness. Additionally, CUSD did not
define a specific coaching model. When investigating instructional coaching, the definition of
effective coaching is somewhat vague and undefined. However, most researchers agree that
instructional coaching utilizes a sort of cycle (Figure 2) that includes a pre-conference, modeling,
and a post-conference (Devine et al., 2013; Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh,
2012). Finally, data revealed that CUSD had an unclear and underused evaluation process for the
instructional coaching program (Table 11). Again, as an integral aspect to what researchers agree
is an effective coaching cycle, evaluation is a key piece to coaching.
This case study of the instructional coaching program related to educational technology
in CUSD revealed many successes, and some shortcomings, of a new format of embedded
professional development that is gaining traction in districts across the country. Moving forward,
further research could look at instructional coaching programs in differing subject areas or
themes outside of solely technology. These may include math, reading, or coaching centered on
effective teaching strategies. Additional research could also reveal the differences in
effectiveness between a part-time instructional coaching program, like that of CUSD, and a full-
time model where coaches are out of the classroom. The results of such research could add to
this study and others in aiding school districts who are looking to devote resources toward
starting their own instructional coaching program.
This study concluded that instructional coaching aids teachers in increasing their self-
efficacy. However, that benefit is only gained when teachers are open and willing to seek out and
accept the help and guidance from a knowledgeable peer. When districts support ongoing
professional development through instructional coaching, teachers bolster their knowledge,
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 114
capabilities, and, ultimately, the belief that they can continue to learn and be effective and
impactful instructors in the 21st century.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 115
References
Abbitt, J. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher
education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300.
Alamin, A., Shaoqing, G., & Le, Z. (2015). The development of educational technology policies
(1996-2012) lessons from china and the USA. International Education Studies, 8(6), 142-
150.
Andrzejewski, J., & Alessio, J. (1999). Educating for global citizenship and social responsibility.
Progressive Perspectives, 1(2), 2-17.
Anonymous. (2011). International society for technology in education; ISTE’s 2011 conference
and exposition focuses on unlocking potential. Education Letter, 93. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/about/media-relations/news-details/2011/01/28/iste’s-2011-
conference-and-exposition-focuses-on-unlocking-potential
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten
years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior, 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A., 1925. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Boyer, W., & Crippen, C. (2014). Learning and teaching in the 21st century: An education plan
for the new millennium developed in British Columbia, Canada. Childhood Education,
90(5), 343-353.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 116
California Department of Education. (2015). Common Core State Standards Systems
Implementation Plan for California. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/documents/ccsssimplementationplan.pdf
Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching:
Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
SAGE.
Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A
Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Devine, M., Houssemand, C., & Meyers, R. (2013). Instructional coaching for teachers: A
strategy to implement new practices in the classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 93, 1126-1130. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.001
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: Macmillan.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R., (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for

enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Services.

Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-

61.

Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 117
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of
Educational Change, 7(3), 113-122.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice,
39(1), 50-56.
Gallucci, C., DeVoogt Van Lare, M., Yoon, I., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional Coaching:
Building Theory About the Role and Organizational Support for Professional Learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963.
Guskey, T. (2009). Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional development.
Educational Horizons, 87(2), 224.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and
Teaching, 6(2), 151-182.
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and
technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367.
Hu, P., Clark, T, & Ma, W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A
longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241.
Jenkinson, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of educational technology: What are we
attempting to measure? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 273-280.
Kear, M. (2000), Concept Analysis of Self-efficacy. Graduate Research in Nursing, available at:

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 118
http://graduateresearch.com/Kear.htm

Knight, J. (2007). 5 key points to building a coaching program. Journal of Staff Development,
28(1), 26-31, 74.
Knight, J. & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: a focus on practice.
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100-112.
Knight, J. (2008). Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: The key to translating research into practice lies in
continuous, job-embedded learning with ongoing support. Journal of Staff Development,
30(1), 18-22.
Kretlow, A., Cooke, N., & Wood, C. (2012; 2011). Using in-service and coaching to increase
teachers’ accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special Education,
33(6), 348-361.
Kurbanoglu, S., (2003) Selfefficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and
lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 635 - 646.
L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching?
guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. Reading
Teacher, 63(7), 544-554.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 119
National Education Association (NEA). (2010). Preparing 21st Century students for a global
society: An educator’s guide to the “four Cs.” Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guideto-Four-Cs.pdf
Ogle, T., Branch, M., Christmas, O., Clement, J., Fillion, J., Goddard, E., & Vinson, M. (2002).
Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in
Elementary and Secondary Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003313.pdf
Oppenheimer, T. (2004). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of
technology. New York, NY: Random House.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Project Tomorrow. (2014). Speak Up Survey Data. Retrieved from
http://www.speakup4schools.org/speakup2014/
Ribble, M., & Miller, T. (2013). Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students
to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 17(1), 137-145.
Richey, R. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24-
25.
Riordan, T. (2005). Education for the 21st Century: Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Change, 37, 52-56.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer
skills and computer cognitions of canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(2), 141-156. doi:10.1086/499697
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 120
Serap Kurbanoglu, S. (2003). Self-efficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and
lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 635-646.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:
Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language
Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.
Shepherd, I., & Reeves, B. (2012). iPad or iFad -the mobile classroom. Journal of Higher
Education Theory and Practice, 12(5), 40.
Siegle, D. (2013). iPads: Intuitive technology for 21st-century students. Gifted Child Today,
36(2), 146-150.
Slepkov, H. (2008). Teacher professional growth in an authentic learning environment. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 85.
Smith, J., & Hu, R. (2013). Rethinking teacher education: Synchronizing eastern and western
views of teaching and learning to promote 21st century skills and global perspectives.
Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 86-108.
Soland, J., Hamilton, L., & Stecher, B. (2013). Measuring 21st Century Competencies. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/
external_publications/EP50463.html
Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional
development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(4), 547.
Teemant, A. (2014). A mixed-methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of
diverse learners. Urban Education, 49(5), 574-604.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 121
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (1996). Getting
America’s Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy
Challenge. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED398899.pdf
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2000). e-Learning--
Putting a World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444604.pdf
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward A
New Golden Age In American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s
Students Are Revolutionizing Expectations. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484046.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2004). Title IX General Provisions: Definitions.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512681.pdf
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming
Educational Technology Learning Powered by Technology. Trenton, NJ: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2016). Future Ready
Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 122
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the
digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29(5), 403-413.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why our kids don’t have the skills they
need for college, careers, and citizenship-and what we can do about it. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Wang, L., & Ertmer, P. (2003). Vicarious learning experiences and goal setting: Impact on
preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for technology integration. Proceedings of the 2003
National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology (AECT). 1, 501-514.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 123
APPENDIX A
GENERAL RECRUITMENT LETTER

August 31, 2016

Dear CUSD Teacher:

We are Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre, and Adam
Hernandez, doctoral students in the Rossier School of Education at USC. We are conducting a
research study as part of our dissertation process that focuses on the relationship between
instructional coaching with educational technology in CUSD.

You have been identified as someone who is a teacher or instructional coach, who may be
willing to participate. Participation would require one short survey taking up to 5 minutes. At the
conclusion of the survey you may be asked if you are willing to participate in a follow-up
interview.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity will remain confidential at all
times. Your relationship with USC will not be affected whether or not you participate in this
study. Please read the attached Informed Consent document, which details the purpose and
confidentiality of the study. If you have questions, please contact us via email: Amanda
Heineman (amandajj@usc.edu).

Thank you in advance for your valuable participation,

Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre, and Adam Hernandez

University of Southern California

You may access the survey at the following link:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9QO5aytzZ00dGL3

Instructional Coaching and Teacher Self-Efficacy UPIRB# 16-00281
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 124
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION EMAIL

INTERVIEW SET UP EMAIL
April, 2016

Dear [Name],

My name is (Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre or Adam
Hernandez), I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at USC and am
conducting a research study as part of my dissertation process under the direction of Dr. Rudy
Castruita. Our study focuses on the relationship between instructional coaching with educational
technology as embedded 21st century professional development and the resulting teacher
self-efficacy changes. You have indicated willingness to participate in a follow-up interview.
Participation would require one interview taking up to 30 minutes.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. Your relationship with USC will not be
affected whether or not you participate(s) in this study.

I will be happy to come to your school site for this interview. Please use the following link to
sign up for a time that would be convenient for you: https://calendly.com/

Once you have picked a time, I will be sending you an email that includes an overview of the
questions and topics to be covered during the interview.

Thank you. If you have questions, please contact me via email [Amanda Heineman
amandajj@usc.edu; Brandee Ramirez blramire@usc.edu; Lauren Steinmann lsteinma@usc.edu;
Kristy Andre kandre@usc.edu; Adam Hernandez adamhern@usc.edu]. Additionally, if you know
of any colleagues who would be willing to participate in our study by taking our quick digital
survey and/or doing an interview, please let me know!
Thank you so much for your time!

(Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre or Adam Hernandez)

Interview Set Up Email | Instructional Coaching and Teacher Self-Efficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 125
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW COVER LETTER

INTERVIEW COVER LETTER/EMAIL
April, 2016

Dear [Name],

My name is (Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre or Adam
Hernandez), a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at USC and am conducting a
research study as part of my dissertation process under the direction of Dr. Rudy Castruita. Our
study focuses on the relationship between instructional coaching with educational technology as
embedded 21st century professional development and the resulting teacher self-efficacy changes.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in a 30 minute interview.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times. Your relationship with USC will not be affected whether or not you
participate in this study.

Our interview has been scheduled to take place at your office on ___________ at ____________.
(date) (time)

If you have questions, please contact me via email: [Amanda Heineman amandajj@usc.edu;
Brandee Ramirez blramire@usc.edu; Lauren Steinmann lsteinma@usc.edu; Kristy Andre
kandre@usc.edu; Adam Hernandez adamhern@usc.edu ].

Thank you for your participation,

(Amanda Heineman, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, Kristy Andre or Adam Hernandez)

University of Southern California

Interview Cover Letter/Email | Instructional Coaching and Teacher Self-Efficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 126
APPENDIX D
SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy.
Los Angeles, CA 90089

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS AND THE
IMPACT ON TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY WITH EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This study has been approved by the IUSD Research Committee.
This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything
that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand the role that instructional coaches play in the
development of teacher self-efficacy with the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. The units of analysis are classroom teachers and
instructional coaches within the same identified district, across elementary, middle, and high
school settings.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take up to 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the survey, you will be asked if you
will be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. You are not obligated to participate in the
interview in order to complete the survey. You do not have to answer any questions you do not
want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to this survey are completely confidential and anonymous. There will be no
identifiable information obtained in connection with this survey. Your name, address or other
identifiable information will not be collected. The data will be stored on a password protected
computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

Last edits made on: 5-23-16 – Information Sheet for Exempt Applications
UPIRB#: U P-1 6 -0 0 2 8 1
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 127

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Co-Investigator:
Amanda Heineman
amandajj@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Adam Hernandez
adamhern@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Brandee Ramirez
blramire@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Lauren Steinmann
lsteinma@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Kristy Andre
kandre@usc.edu
Faculty Advisor:
Dr. Rudy Castruita
rcastrui@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Last edits made on: 5-23-16 – Information Sheet for Exempt Applications
UPIRB#: U P-1 6 -0 0 2 8 1
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 128
APPENDIX E
AUDIO INFORMED CONSENT

IRB Template Version: 3-8-2013 Page 1 of 3

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOL
DISTRICTS: EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING PROGRAMS IN
SCHOOLS AND THE IMPACT ON TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY WITH
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Rudy Castruita, as the
principal investigor, along with the following co-investigators: Amanda Heineman, Adam
Hernandez, Brandee Ramirez, Lauren Steinmann, and Kristy Andre at the University of Southern
California, because you are teachers and/or a Technology Advisory Coach . Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read
the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If
you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this
form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand the role that instructional coaches play in
development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational
technology in California K-12 public schools. The study will also seek to uncover types of
instructional coaching models that are most effective for districts, as well as the logistics of using
coaching to support district-wide technology initiatives.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take up to 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the survey, you will be asked if you
will be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. You are not obligated to participate in the
interview in order to complete the survey. You do not have to answer any questions you do not
want to.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks and/or discomforts in regard to this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Last edits made on: [5-23-2016] – General ICF No fMRI
USC UPIRB #

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 129

IRB Template Version: 3-8-2013 Page 2 of 3
This is a research study, the benefits are contingent upon the results. Benefits to society are
anticipated.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to this survey are completely confidential and anonymous. There will be no
identifiable information obtained in connection with this survey. Your name, address or other
identifiable information will not be collected. The data will be stored on a password protected
computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Principal Investigator:
Dr. Rudy Castruita
rcastrui@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Amanda Heineman
amandajj@usc.edu
Co-Investigator: Adam
Hernandez
adamhern@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Brandee Ramirez
blramire@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Lauren Steinmann
lsteinma@usc.edu
Co-Investigator:
Kristy Andre
kandre@usc.edu

Last edits made on: [5-23-2016] – General ICF No fMRI
USC UPIRB #

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 130

IRB Template Version: 3-8-2013 Page 3 of 3

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS

□ I agree to be audio-recorded
□ I do not want to be audio-recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Last edits made on: [5-23-2016] – General ICF No fMRI
USC UPIRB #

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 131
APPENDIX F
COACH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

COACH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Date
Time of Interview
Interview Location
Interviewer
Interviewee

INTRODUCTION
❖ Thank you for agreeing to participate in our study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer some of my questions. The interview should talk about an hour, does that
work for you?

❖ Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating. I am currently a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. The primary purpose of this study is to examine teacher
selfefficacy (which we define as a teacher’s belief in their abilities regarding teaching
practice and technology) with instructional coaching and educational technology. We are
conducting both interviews and observations and we have structured our line of inquiry
around instructional coaches and teachers. We are particularly interested in the effect of
instructional coaching on a teacher’s belief in their own ability to effectively implement
instructional technology in the classroom. We have surveyed teachers across the district and
are talking to multiple coaches and teachers to learn more about this.

❖ I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means
is that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will be interviewing multiple teachers
and combining responses for our report. However, none of your answers will be identified
with you personally. If you would prefer to not answer a question, simply say ‘no’.

❖ I am happy to provide you with a copy of my executive summary upon completion. Do you
have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have any (more)
questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview (give hard copy for the
participant to sign). I have brought a recording device with me today so that I can accurately
capture what you share with me. May I also have your permission to record our
conversation? Thank You! [Test Recorder]

Coach Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 132

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Please tell me a little bit about your role as a coach this year.
● Who are the teachers you are serving?
● Do you have a history with using technology in the classroom?
2. How often do you work with a teacher ?
3. What is your philosophy on the usefulness of technology for student learning?
4. What does a typical meeting with a teacher look like?
5. Could you please describe a time for me when you felt successful when supporting teachers
with the integration of technology?
6. What are some of the most common challenges your teachers face integrating technology
into instruction?
7. What are some strategies you use to support teachers with those challenges?
8. In order to support technology integration, what resources do you provide teachers with?
9. I recognize there is some who argue the integration of technology is not worth the time and
expense some schools are dedicating. How would you respond?
10. Do you feel the professional development/growth obtained by the teachers you work with is
shared with colleagues?
● If so, what does that look like?
11. What tools does your district use to measure or evaluate your effectiveness as a coach?
12. Do you feel, working alongside a teacher increases a teacher’s selfefficacy?

Coach Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 133

CLOSING
❖ Is there anything else you would like to add that perhaps we haven’t covered in our
conversation regarding educational technology or teacher selfefficacy (which we define
as a teacher’s belief in their abilities regarding teaching practice and technology)?

❖ Thank you so much for your time today. I greatly appreciate it. All of this will be very
helpful in my study. If I need to followup with additional questions, would it be ok for
me to email you? Again, thank you!

Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Question Interview Question
RQ1: How do teachers perceive their professional growth with educational
technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
Q8, Q9, Q12
RQ2: How do teachers who work with an instructional coach share what
they have learned with colleagues?
Q10
RQ3: How have instructional coaches been beneficial to teachers in
increasing their selfefficacy with educational technology?
Q1, Q2, Q3
RQ4: What measures do K12 school districts use to evaluate instructional
coaches and technology integration?
Q11
RQ5: Do teachers who work with instructional coaches experience
increased selfefficacy with educational technology?
Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7

Coach Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 134
APPENDIX G
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Date
Time of Interview
Interview Location
Interviewer
Interviewee

INTRODUCTION
❖ Thank you for agreeing to participate in our study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer some of my questions. The interview should talk about an hour, does that
work for you?

❖ Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating. I am currently a doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. The primary purpose of this study is to examine teacher
selfefficacy (which we define as a teacher’s belief in their abilities regarding teaching
practice and technology) with instructional coaching and educational technology. We are
conducting both interviews and observations and we have structured our line of inquiry
around instructional coaches and teachers. We are particularly interested in the effect of
instructional coaching on a teacher’s belief in their own ability to effectively implement
instructional technology in the classroom. We have surveyed teachers across the district and
are talking to multiple coaches and teachers to learn more about this.

❖ I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means
is that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will be interviewing multiple teachers
and combining responses for our report. However, none of your answers will be identified
with you personally. If you would prefer to not answer a question, simply say ‘no’.

❖ I am happy to provide you with a copy of my executive summary upon completion. Do you
have any questions about the study before we get started? If you don’t have any (more)
questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview (give hard copy for the
participant to sign). I have brought a recording device with me today so that I can accurately
capture what you share with me. May I also have your permission to record our
conversation? Thank You! [Test Recorder]

Teacher Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 135

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Please tell me a little bit about your role as a teacher this year.
● Who are the students you are serving?
● Do you have a history with using technology in the classroom?
2. How often do you work with a Technology Advisory Coach (TAC)?
3. What does a typical meeting with your TAC look like?
4. What would you rate your knowledge of technology in the classroom before having a TAC
work with you?
5. What are some of your challenges with implementing technology in your classroom?
6. Could you please describe a time for me when you felt successful with the integration of
technology?
7. Do you share what you have learned from working with your TAC with your colleagues?
8. Suppose you were not being coached, how might that affect your success with implementing
technology in your classroom?
9. You have been working with a TAC this year. What would you share with teachers who say
that they cannot be successful in technology implementation without a coach?
10. How would you rate your knowledge of educational technology now that you are coached?
● Tell me more about what that looks like.
11. What tools are used to measure or evaluate the effectiveness of your coach?
● Are there any tools used to measure or evaluate technology integration?



Teacher Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 136

CLOSING
❖ Is there anything else you would like to add that perhaps we haven’t covered in our
conversation regarding educational technology or teacher selfefficacy (which we define
as a teacher’s belief in their abilities regarding teaching practice and technology)?

❖ Thank you so much for your time today. I greatly appreciate it. All of this will be very
helpful in my study. If I need to followup with additional questions, would it be ok for
me to email you? Again, thank you!

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & INTERVIEW TABLE

Research Question Interview Question
RQ1: How do teachers perceive their professional growth with educational
technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach?
Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9
RQ2: How do teachers who work with an instructional coach share what
they have learned with colleagues?
Q9, Q10
RQ3: How have instructional coaches been beneficial to teachers in
increasing their selfefficacy with educational technology?
Q6, Q7, Q9, Q10
RQ4: What measures do K12 school districts use to evaluate instructional
coaches and technology integration?
Q11
RQ5: Do teachers who work with instructional coaches experience
increased selfefficacy with educational technology?
Q1, Q4, Q6, Q7

Teacher Interview Protocol | Instructional Coaching and Teacher SelfEfficacy
USC Doctoral Dissertation, 2016
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 137
APPENDIX H
TEACHER & COACH SURVEY

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 1/9
<1 year
15 years
610 years
1115 years
1620 years
Default Question Block
What best describes your role in IUSD?
Teacher Technology Advisory Coach (TAC)
How long have you taught?

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 138

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 139

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 3/9
Yes
No
Yes
No
Have you ever worked oneonone with a Technology Advisory Coach?
Do you feel that you have improved your educational technology use since
working alongside a TAC?
If Yes, how would you rate the effectiveness of a TAC in helping you improve
your educational technology use?
Extremely effective Very effective Moderately effective Slightly effective
If No: Please explain your answer
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 140

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 4/9
Yes
No
Yes
No
Do you share the information gained from working with a TAC with your
colleagues?
If yes, How do the you share with your colleagues? (select all that apply)
Email
Present at staff
meetings
Share at grade
level/department
meetings
PLN (Professional
Learning Network)
Informal
conversations
Does your administrator or other district personnel evaluate the work you do
with your TAC?
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 141

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 5/9
Yes
No
<1 year
12 years
34 years
If yes, how is it evaluated?
Would you be willing to participate in a followup interview?
Thank you for your willingness to participate in a followup interview. Please
provide your name below, so we can contact you for an interview.
Please provide an email address below, so we can contact you to set up an
interview.
How long have you been a TAC?
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 142

INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 143

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 7/9
15
610
1115
16+
Yes
No
Extremely effective
Very effective
Moderately effective
Slightly effective
On average how many teachers do you work with per week?
Do you see teacher’s use of educational technology increase since working with
you?
If Yes, How would you rate the effectiveness of the TAC program on increasing
teacher use of educational technology?
If No: Please explain your answer.
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 144

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 8/9
Yes
No
Yes
Do teachers you work with share what they have learned with their colleagues?
If yes: How do the teachers share with their colleagues? (select all that apply)
Email
Present at staff
meetings
Share at grade
level/department
meetings
PLN (Professional
Learning Network)
Informal
conversations
Does your administrator or other District personnel evaluate the work you do
with teachers?
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 145

11/3/2016 Qualtrics Survey Software
https://login.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview 9/9
No
Yes
No
If yes, how is it evaluated?
Would you be willing to participate in a followup interview?
Thank you for your willingness to participate in a followup interview. Please
provide your name below, so we can contact you for an interview.
Please provide an email address below, so we can contact you to set up an
interview.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this case study was to understand the role that instructional coaches play in the development of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of district-wide educational technology in California K-12 public schools. Specifically, this study sought to discover for elementary, middle and high school levels (1) how teachers perceive their professional growth with educational technology as a result of working alongside an instructional coach, (2) how teachers who work with an instructional coach share what they learned with colleagues, (3) how have instructional coaches been beneficial to teachers in increasing their self-efficacy with educational technology, (4) what measures K-12 school districts use to evaluate instructional coaches and technology integration, and (5) whether teachers who work with instructional coaches experience increased self-efficacy with educational technology. This study utilized a mixed-methods approach for a case study of one California K-12 school district using an instructional coach program for educational technology instruction and support. Interviews were conducted with eight K-12 instructional coaches and five K-12 classroom teachers who receive coaching in order to find information that cannot be observed and to provide answers to the research questions. Quantitative data was collected through a digital survey completed by 12 K-12 instructional coaches and 58 K-12 classroom teachers. Through triangulation of the data, this research suggests that a majority of K-12 teachers found that working with an instructional coach helped to increase their self-efficacy. Additionally, this study suggests that building self-efficacy in teachers encourages them to more effectively use educational technology and helps teachers share acquired knowledge with colleagues.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Technology integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction in K–12 schools

PDF

Building networks for change: how ed-tech coaches broker information to lead instructional reform

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Adam (author)

Core Title Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/08/2017

Defense Date 11/14/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 21st century skills,educational technology,instructional coach,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,self-efficacy,technology integration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Love, Laurie (committee member)

Creator Email adamh920@yahoo.com,adamhern@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-330094

Unique identifier UC11255860

Identifier etd-HernandezA-5003.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-330094 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HernandezA-5003.pdf

Dmrecord 330094

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hernandez, Adam

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA