University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School

(USC Thesis Other)

Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Implementation of the PLC Coaching Model at American Community School
by
Amy Diane Wood

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Amy Diane Wood 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Amy Diane Wood certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Darline Robles, Committee Co-chair
Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to (a) understand how American Community School (ACS), an
independent private school, implemented the professional learning community (PLC) coaching
model; (b) investigate promising practices utilized by the PLC coaches; and (c) understand
limitations confronted by PLC coaches and teachers. Guided by the quality implementation
framework, designed by Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012), this study gathered data
through surveys, semi-structured interviews with teachers and coaches, and document analysis.
The teacher coach model, implemented by Star City Schools, was also used as a teacher
leadership model. Findings from this study revealed several promising practices and limitations.
With a well-crafted design, the promising practices included a model that provided initial and
ongoing coach training, implementation and structural flexibility, and the opportunity to
participate in high-quality collaboration and receive just in time feedback. This was
accomplished by piloting and refining the model and gathering feedback from stakeholders to
improve future application. The limitations included a need for greater clarity on the PLC
coaching construct, training for teachers, workload and time management for coaches,
establishing teacher buy-in, and refining the PLC coach selection process. This study highlights
areas for further consideration and growth as ACS works towards the 2027 strategic goals of
excellence. The study also proposes a framework that can be used by educators in other settings
to examine quality implementation.

v
Dedication
To my husband, Jeffrey Thomas Wood, I could not have achieved this without your love and
support. You are my inspiration and the reason why I write, or should I say the reason why I can
write. You have been by my side and watched me produce every paper since my freshman year
in college. You have taught me not only how to write, but how to enjoy the process. Without you,
none of this would have been possible. God knew just what I needed when He gave me you, an
English major, 26 years ago. Thank you for your belief in my ability to finish this work and for
your constant encouragement. Thank you for reading through every paper, in my academic
career, and for understanding why achieving this doctorate dream was so important to me. I will
always remember the final leg of this journey as the time we lost your dad. Because this paper is
dedicated to you, my love, I also dedicate it to the memory of William Thomas Wood, the best
papa in the world. He left quite a legacy, in you, and I am so thankful you are continuing that
legacy in the way you love me and our boys.

To my children Jonathan and Jackson Wood. Thank you for your patience and understanding as I
missed critical moments over the last 3 years of your life. I know I can never get back the
sporting events I missed or the college scouting visits, but I will forever be your Dr. Mom. I
appreciate my witty boys who kept me laughing along the way. I can’t wait to see what you both
do with the many gifts and talents the Lord has given you. You boys are my pride and joy!

To Cecilia Valdez, my helper and friend. You made all of this possible. You kept food on the
table, my house together, and my family healthy while I worked on this dissertation. Because of
you, I had the time to attend class, research, and write. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support I have received from
my colleagues, friends, USC cohort members, chair and committee members, and my family.
To my colleagues: Thank you ACS teachers and coaches who were willing to take my
surveys and be interviewed. To my Grade 1 team for always checking in on my progress and
mental wellbeing.
To my friends: A huge thank you to my best friend, Aida Latip, who knew just what to
say and do to encourage me along the way. The brain breaks, in the form of coffee or a bike ride,
were very much needed and appreciated. My other bike buddies, Melissa and Rohana, thank you
for pushing me! To Cecilia, for your giving spirit and for making our house a home.
To my USC cohort members: Thank you for challenging my thinking and partnering with
me on this uncharted COVID-19 doctorate journey. Class format and research looked different,
but we rose to the challenge and overcame. Thank you Brendan and Shabari for keeping me
grounded and being my thought partners.
To my chair and committee members: I would not have been able to do this without you.
Thank you, Dr. Robles, Dr. Cash and a special thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Picus.
To my family: A special thank you to my family. I cannot imagine completing this
journey without you. To my sons, Jonathan and Jackson, who were always willing to listen to my
learning stories which helped me find joy in the learning process. To my mom who helped me
transcribe, gave me a place to write all summer, and took me on many hiking and biking brain
breaks. To my sister, JingJing, for listening when I needed to vent and letting me talk out my
dissertation topic. Above all else, thank you to my husband, Jeff, for encouraging me every step
of the way. Thank you for being my feedback partner, editor, and for believing in me.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 5
Organizational Context, Mission, and Strategic Plan ......................................................... 7
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 11
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 13
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 14
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 17
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 19
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 21
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 21
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 24
The Impact of Coaching .................................................................................................... 24
Cognitive Coaching .......................................................................................................... 27
Teacher Coach: Star City Schools .................................................................................... 33
Implementation Research .................................................................................................. 44
Summary of the Literature ................................................................................................ 56
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 57
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 57
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 60

viii
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 64
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 70
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 71
Results: Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 73
Discussion: Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 88
Results: Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 96
Discussion: Research Question 2 .................................................................................... 101
Results: Research Question 3 .......................................................................................... 107
Discussion: Research Question 3 .................................................................................... 124
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 126
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 130
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 131
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 138
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 147
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 149
Appendix A: Informed Consent Study Information Sheet for Research .................................... 161
Appendix B: PLC Coach Interview Protocol .............................................................................. 164
PLC Coach Questions ..................................................................................................... 165
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 167
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol ................................................................................... 168
Teacher Questions ........................................................................................................... 169
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 171
Appendix D: Coach Survey on the PLC Coaching Model ......................................................... 172
Survey Questions ............................................................................................................ 172

ix
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 176
Appendix E: Teacher Survey on the PLC Coaching Model ....................................................... 177
Survey Questions ............................................................................................................ 177
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 181

x
List of Tables
Table 1: PLC Coaching Model Participants……………………………………………………. 59
Table 2: Summary of Teacher Survey Participation…………………………………………… 72
Table 3: Leadership Framework………………………………………………………………... 81
Table 4: PLC Coach Construct…………………………………………………………………. 86
Table 5: Strengths and Limitations Found by ACS…………………………………………… 105

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: ACS 2027 Strategic Plan Framework………………………………………………... 10
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………. 15
Figure 3: The Teacher Coach Operations Guide……………………………………………….. 36
Figure 4: Quality Implementation Framework…………………………………………………. 48
Figure 5: Builds Capacity: Does Not Build Capacity…………………………………………. 143
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The century-old practice of having the principal in charge of developing the teacher's
instructional expertise is no longer practical or valid. Aguilar (2013) shared the words of poet
and activist, Audre Lorde (1984), in regards to addressing age-old systems. Audre Lorde shares,
“true change can only be realized when we engage in an entirely different set of thoughts,
beliefs, and set of values that are radically different from those of the past” (Aguilar, 2013, p. 5).
In the 21st
st
century, we need a new set of tools so we avoid reproducing structures of oppression
(Aguiar, 2019), and that is exactly what has come to fruition over the last 40 years since Audre
Lorde made her statement. Innovative sets of tools have been created and implemented across
the world to help establish and create the space in education for collaboration focused on student
learning. Just a few of those created tools that will be incorporated into this study, are distributed
leadership, professional learning communities (PLCs), and coaching.
Distributed Leadership
Schools have used forms of disturbed leadership as tools to empower and grow leaders to
improve teaching and learning. This is accomplished by empowering them to lead their teams in
making key decisions in their assigned divisions. According to Neumerski (2013), distributed
perspectives challenge us to rethink leadership as interactions between leader and follower.
Distributed leadership within schools often takes the form of instructional leadership
teams (Neumerski, 2013). Instructional leadership teams include principals, teacher leaders, and
instructional coaches. It is, however, only in the past few decades that schools and districts have
developed formal teacher leadership positions (Neumerski, 2013). Unfortunately, there is no
consistent definition or little consensus around what constitutes teacher leadership (Neumerski,
2013). Teacher leaders might take on the role of “consultants, curriculum managers, department
2

chairs, mentor teachers, professional development (PD) coordinators, resource teachers,
specialists, coaches, and demonstration teachers” (Neumerski, 2013, p. 320). “Such variation
means only some of the work of teacher leadership centers on instructional improvement”
(Neumerski, 2013, p. 321).
Teacher leadership has three classifications: formal, informal, and hybrid. Formal teacher
leaders work full-time in coordinator position or coaching roles to support the teachers in
accomplishing school and district initiatives (Hunzicker, 2017). Most formal teacher leadership
positions are well defined, but those with limited positions are harder to find. Informal teacher
leaders teach full-time and assume other leadership tasks such as leading PD or serving on
school committees (Hunzicker, 2017). Informal teacher leadership positions are more numerous,
but not as well defined. One of the problems is that teachers may not volunteer and when they
do, they may not receive compensation. Hunzicker (2017) uses the label “hybrid teacher leaders”
who teach part-time and are assigned to support fellow teachers for the remainder of their
contracted hours. The hybrid role is a nice balance between formal and informal, but a
potentially risky balance as it could result in an inefficient use of teacher leaders’ time and
expertise if the roles and responsibilities are not made clear. Most school systems lack a model to
build teacher leaders who can focus on teacher development. Bierly et al. (2015) believe there is
an opportunity to introduce leadership models that give teachers the support they need to produce
better outcomes.
Professional Learning Communities
School systems all over the world are investing in PLCs. PLCs are intentionally formed
groups of teachers brought together to improve collaboration, coordination and share the best
instructional practices. “At their best, PLCs can be highly rigorous and well run, creating a
3

valuable forum for discussing core instructional issues and providing teachers much-needed
support and counsel” (Bierly et al., 2015, p. 23). Additionally, they promote peer-to-peer
learning stemming from in person collaboration. Robertson and Timperley (2011) conducted a
review on eight schools that focused on the PLCs’ impact on teaching practices and student
learning. The review found that in all cases, student learning improved. The common thread
found was that these schools had a persistent focus on student learning and were able to make a
connection between PLCs and student outcomes (Robertson & Timperley, 2011).
Because most PLCs are not led by a leader who possesses the responsibility, time, and
authority to help others improve their instructional practices, they typically fall short of filling
the leadership gap (Bierly et al., 2015). The structure also relies heavily on meetings and group
discussions and does not utilize observations, coaching, and feedback. A study conducted by
Bierly et al. (2015) found that only 12% of PLC leaders said they were the primary person
responsible for teacher performance and 32% said they were responsible for those teachers’
student outcomes.
Due to time constraints and planning, a large majority of schools who have implemented
PLCs have not fully incorporated action learning cycles (Robertson & Timperley, 2011). In an
action learning cycle, teachers use the PLC as a support system to experiment with different
ways of teaching (Robertson & Timperley, 2011, p. 6). According to Robertson and Timperley
(2011), “the process includes thinking systematically about what happened in the classroom,
implementing action where improvements are thought possible, and monitoring and evaluating
the effects of the action with a view to continuing improvement” (Robertson & Timperley, p. 6).
This type of cycle can help bridge what is happening in PLC meetings to what is happening in
individual classrooms. The research indicates that the benefits for teachers participating in action
4

learning cycles might include a “sense of professional empowerment and positive attitudes to
change'' (Robertson & Timperley, 2011, p. 6). Without this type of cycle, PLCs may fall prey to
becoming a time and space to implement school wide or district initiatives.
Coaching
“Coaching offers a new set of tools that have the potential to radically transform our
schools” (Aguiar, 2013, p. 5). There is a general consensus that educators need more knowledge,
skills, practice, and support. Coaching has grown to become one of the most popular and cost-
effective forms of ongoing PD that can fill these needs (Aguilar, 2013; Aguilar, 2019; Hawk,
2020; Kraft & Blazar, 2018; Sailors & Shanklin, 2010). “Coaching can transform schools by
improving teacher practices, addressing systemic issues, and improving outcomes for students”
(Aguilar, 2013, p. 3). Despite its growth and popularity, however, coaching programs fall short
because they lack intentionality and strategy (Aguilar, 2019; McGatha, 2008). It has also been
found that coaches receive the least amount of professional training in schools. Coaching does
not require a certificate or credentials and coaches rarely get PD on adult learning. Aguilar
(2019) explains that the root of the problem is a lack of structure for coaching programs.
There are well over a dozen coaching models and each model has different intentions and
outcomes. All are not equally useful in moving teachers toward becoming a reflective self-
directed practitioner (Coasta & Garmston, 2015; McGatha, 2008). Aguilar (2013) suggests that
schools should define and narrow the scope of their work in order to find and implement a highly
effective, comprehensive coaching program. According to Slider (2019), peer coaching has been
identified as an effective method for improving student learning by supporting teachers through
collaboration and reflection resulting in improved teacher practice. A key concept is that teachers
can learn from the feedback of their peers in a non-evaluative partnership. A peer coaching
5

model that further refines and narrows the scope, is cognitive coaching, developed by Costa and
Garmston (1989). Cognitive coaching was created as a staff development technique and has been
found to promote risk taking, open-mindedness, and a commitment to continuous learning. It
deepens reflective skills, fosters collegiality, increases job satisfaction, and develops cognitive
autonomy (Garmston et al., 1993).
Background of the Problem
One of the great phenomena in education is that things are always changing. Burner
(2018) reminded us of this when he said, “Times change and the ways we teach and learn change
accordingly. Developments in research lead to increased knowledge about the effectiveness of
teaching and learning approaches” (p. 125). Due to changes, schools are continually on the hunt
for a program or tool they can implement that will bring about teacher development that will
enhance student learning. Schools may adopt structures like distributed leadership, PLCs, or
coaching to bring about the necessary change. But how can these structures be better organized,
integrated, and systematized, to bring about the desired change?
Robertson and Timperley (2011) believe the key to improvement lies within investing in
professional learning and collaborative communities of practice and focusing on the teacher as
instructional leader. Neumerski (2013) suggests that to get at the “how” of change, we need to
better “capture instructional leaders in interaction with one another, their followers, and context
around the work of teaching and learning” (p. 324). Neumerski (2013) further believes it is
essential for teachers to learn to make changes in instruction. However, individuals do not simply
engage in these types of opportunities because the opportunity was given (Neumerski, 2013).
Instead, learning needs to be co-constructed by scheduling time to collaborate, reflect on
6

instruction, and analyze student data. There needs to be structure and opportunities provided for
teachers to learn how to improve (Neumerski, 2013).
Research has shown the most effective way to further grow in a very complex profession
like teaching is by practicing it, receiving thoughtful feedback from someone who has
expertise and trust, and then having a chance to reflect and adjust on a regular basis.
(ACS, 2021c, para. 3)
According to Burner (2018), educational change, despite its necessity, is often very
difficult. “Change can succeed or fail, it can be good or it can be a disaster, it can make
us feel incompetent or it can make us feel mastery, we may want to change or feel
resistant to change” (Burner, 2018, p. 123). Robertson and Timperley (2011) remind us that
change that will ultimately impact the classroom and student learning is demanding and time-
consuming. Due to the demand and time constraints, there is little point to doing something that
will not make a difference. So, how does one know if new practices are improving or making a
difference in teacher instruct tion or student learning? Institutions may prototype a tool, model,
or structure to assess its effectiveness prior to implementing it school wide. Because initiatives
and interventions, delivered in real time and settings, look fundamentally different from what
was originally intended, implementing a prototype in advance is beneficial (Albers & Pattuwage,
2017). A menu of implementation strategies, which includes continuous monitoring,
improvement, and evaluation, can be used as a resource for the development of an
implementation plan. The goal of any prototype is to implement with quality. This can be done
by examining the indicators of the quality with which the intervention was implemented to
understand whether the intervention was properly used in practice (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017).
7

Research has discovered that “high-quality implementation contributes to improved educational
services and thereby to better student outcomes” (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017, p. 29).
Organizational Context, Mission, and Strategic Plan
Context
American Community School (ACS) is an independent, non-profit day school located in
Southeast Asia. ACS provides educational programs for preschool through Grade 12 and is the
largest single-campus international school in the world. The school was founded in 1956 and has
grown from 105 students to over 4,000 students (ACS, 2020). ACS provides support for students
with mild to moderate learning needs and provides support for English as an additional language
from Grade 1 to Grade 3. ACS has developed a Preschool through Grade 12 curriculum aligned
with U.S. standards. This includes adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for
Mathematics and English language arts, Next Generation Science Standards and College
(NGSS), and Career and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies (ACS, 2020).
ACS employs 686 employees: 396 teachers, 256 support staff, and seven professional
technical employees, and 30 administrators (ACS, 2020). Among ACS administrators and
faculty, 81% hold a master’s degree or higher. U.S. passport holders comprise 59% of the
faculty, with the remaining faculty hailing from Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, South Africa,
and South America (ACS, 2020). The average tenure of faculty is 8.4 years, and the average
tenure of administrators is 9.5 years, with a 93% annual contract renewal rate. Asians from the
local community comprise 71% of support staff (ACS, 2020).
At ACS there are 66 countries represented in the student body. American citizens account
for over half of the student population (ACS, 2020). The proportion of American citizens in the
student body has held steady, while due to government policies, the Indian and Chinese passport
8

holders’ numbers have increased while local student numbers have declined (ACS, 2020).
Approximately 52% of families pay tuition directly to the school, and tuition for the remaining
students is a benefit covered by the parent’s employer. The average tenure for students at ACS is
4.8 years. Since 2010, the students’ average tenure has lengthened by nearly a full year (ACS,
2020). Students at ACS consistently score above United States norms on standardized testing and
typically, 99% of ACS graduates matriculate to a 4-year college (ACS, 2020).
Mission and Strategic Plan
Dr. Greg Smith began the 2019 school year as the 13th superintendent of ACS. Under his
direction, the school's leadership became unified in its efforts to optimize learning for each
student and put leadership structures in place to facilitate the accomplishment of this goal (ACS,
2021e). The senior leadership team, which consists of 11 senior leads, was established to ensure
coordination between the central office and each division. Centralizing decision-making was a
major shift in the operation of ACS. The impact of this was alignment across all parts of the
school towards the same strategic direction (ACS, 2021e). In the spring of 2021, the ACS 2027
Strategic Plan was created keeping the school’s vision and mission in mind:
We aspire to be a world leader in education, cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for
the future. We are committed to our mission that has been at the heart of our 65–year
history: to provide each student an exemplary American educational experience with an
international perspective. (p. 2)
The Strategic Plan highlights ACS as a forward-looking school which is equally
committed to teacher growth and learning as they are to students’. They stress the importance of
being able to attract, retain, and develop talented educators, working collaboratively in teams, to
9

the vitality of their success (ACS, 2021e). Some of the changes highlighted in the 2027 Strategic
Plan are (ACS, 2021e):
• deepen our students’ focus on our learning aspirations
• promote consistency of high-quality teaching in every classroom to support the
learning needs of each student
• increase coaching and feedback for teachers on their professional practice, including
through the development of teacher leadership and coaching opportunities
• continue to explore and design innovative programs to meet student needs and
interests as well as the ACS strategic direction
ACS strategic framework’s foundation consists of five core values: compassion, fairness,
honesty, respect, and responsibility. Built on their core values are the three areas of strategic
focus: excellence, extraordinary care, and possibilities. By focusing on these three areas, ACS
believes they can best help their students attain the seven learning aspirations and become
exceptional thinkers prepared for the future (ACS, 2021e). In doing so, ACS further believes
they will instil a sense of joy and purpose in learning to their students. In order to achieve
excellence, ACS will focus on the following three areas related to excellence:
• deepen students’ focus on learning aspirations in every classroom and co-curricular
program through aligned, consistent curriculum and assessment practice
• promote consistency of high-quality teaching in every classroom to support the
learning needs of each student, including those who need additional support and those
who are ready for extension or acceleration
10

• increase coaching and feedback for teachers on their professional practice, including
through the development of teacher leadership and coaching opportunities and teacher
PLC (ACS, 2021e, para. 10)
The 2027 Strategic Plan framework is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1
ACS 2027 Strategic Plan Framework

Note. From ACS2027: American Community School Strategic Plan, 2022
(https://www.sas.edu.sg/about-us/strategic-direction). In the public domain.
11

The third area related to excellence was a desire to increase teacher coaching. ACS
(2021e) believes “everyone benefits from regular, actionable feedback to further improve and
develop their professional practice” (para. 11). Helping teachers to further strengthen and
develop their classroom practices was identified as the most important lever to further improve
learning experiences for students (ACS, 2021e). The PLC, which was designed to accelerate the
impact of teaching teams to bridge teacher collaboration and learning to classroom practice, will
be championed by the PLC coach. The PLC coach will do this in three ways: teach, coach, and
lead.
By teaching, they continue learning as teachers and experience the same challenges as
those they are coaching and leading. By coaching, they facilitate feedback and learning
among team members (including peer-to-peer, coach-teammate, and/or in group settings).
By leading, they are able to support both individual and collective growth in ways that
better support student learning and our strategic direction. (ACS, 2021e, para 11)
Statement of the Problem
Most school systems lack a model to build teacher leaders who can focus on teacher
development. And “asking principals to assume direct responsibility for the development and
support of approximately 40 teachers is not an effective approach” (Bierly et al., 2015, p.
27). When the principal is asked to do this work, teachers are left feeling unsupported, isolated,
and questioning their ability to achieve better outcomes with their students. Bierly et al. (2015)
believe there is an opportunity to introduce leadership models that give teachers the support they
need to produce better outcomes. The ideal model would provide more opportunity for teacher
leaders to build their capacity and improve student learning. The teacher leader would be given
more responsibility when it comes to all aspects of teacher PD. This would include “setting
12

specific goals, observing, giving feedback, inspiring and motivating, facilitating high-quality
collaboration, and creating strong alignment” between the classroom and PLC (Bierly et al.,
2015, p. 30). Bierly et al. (2015) claim “such leadership models are rare today. Teacher support
is too often fragmented: Some leaders just provide coaching, some focus only on evaluation,
some work on professional development and others facilitate collaboration” (p. 30). The ultimate
goal is to “design and implement a distributed leadership model that empowers leaders with the
time and authority to help schools deliver on their most important objectives: better teaching and
learning” (Bierly et al., 2015, p. 27).
ACS believes that their greatest asset is their teachers and they want to provide more
opportunities for teachers to learn from each other and receive just-in-time feedback and
coaching on their classroom practice (ACS, 2021c). Currently, there is no time or structure to
support this concept, so ACS has created a special position called the PLC coach. According to
Sider (2019) peer coaching must be facilitated in an intentional way, with a strategic plan for
implementation, for it to be effective. Keeping this in mind, the PLC coaching model will be
prototyped to explore how ACS might better meet individual needs while at the same time
providing a higher level of support for PLCs (ACS, 2021c).
With half-day (0.5) release time, the PLC coaching model utilizes the PLC lead teacher
as a cognitive coach. Dr. Greg Smith joined ACS as the new Superintendent in 2019 and was
previously the Superintendent of Star City Schools. In 2013, under Dr. Smith’s leadership, Star
City Schools implemented a peer coaching model that became known as the teacher coach (TC)
model. In 2017 Star City Schools was named a Great District for Great Teachers, one of just
nine school districts in the nation to earn the award (SCS, 2018). The winning of this award was
largely attributed to the TC model which started in 14 schools in 2013 and grew to almost every
13

Star school by 2017. At the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, 1 year after joining ACS,
Dr. Smith announced that ACS would be implementing a model similar to the TC model. The
name was changed to professional learning community coach (PLC coach) and 10 teachers were
selected to implement the prototype for the 2021–2022 school year. The goal was for the model
to go school wide 2022–2023.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research project was to study how an international school
implemented a distributed leadership model, PLC coaching model, to empower leaders with the
time and authority to focus on both leading and coaching the members of their teams,
individually and collectively within PLCs. This study was designed to gather teachers’
perceptions of the promising practices and limitations related to the implementation of the PLC
coaching model. Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) quality implementation framework
(QIF) was utilized as it defines the critical steps for quality implementation. Meyers,
Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) believe that quality implementation is best achieved through
systematically thinking about the implementation process and believe the QIF can assist those
interested in incorporating more evidence-based innovations into everyday practice. The QIF
provides a series of coordinated steps, which include assessment, collaboration and negotiation,
monitoring, and self-reflection, which are included to increase the likelihood that the desired
goals will be achieved. The teacher coach (TC) model, implemented by Star City Schools, will
also be used as a teacher leadership model. The TC model will be utilized due to its proven
ability to thrive in a variety of settings, to improve the coaching teachers receive, and to improve
the quality of instruction in the classroom (SCS, 2018b). Nelson Mandela’s words remind us
14

why it is worth the effort to analyze, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of teaching
models: ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. How does an international school implement the PLC coaching model?
a. To what extent did PLC coach pilot teachers feel they received proper training
and on-going support?
b. What are pilot teachers’ perceptions of the infrastructure, skills, and
motivation needed for the model to be implemented with quality?
2. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the promising practices?
3. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the limitations?
Conceptual Framework
Research from the areas of quality implementation, distributed leadership, and ACS’s
PLC coaching construct were combined to produce the conceptual framework found in Figure
1.2. This framework was utilized to see how ACS implemented its PLC coaching model. More
specifically, it used the quality implementation steps, as laid out by Meyers, Wandersman, Katz,
et al. (2012) and Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012), to obtain perceptions of how well
participants believe ASC implemented the PLC coaching model. Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et
al. (2012) believes a framework, such as this, can help synthesize and translate complicated
issues that occur during implementation. The conceptual framework for this study is provided in
Figure 2.

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

15

16

Mallory (2011) suggested that once the purpose of a project has been understood, it may
be helpful to use an existing framework to guide the project. This should include concrete
implementation steps. The overarching question, which frames this study, points toward the
conceptual framework of quality implementation (Agee, 2009). The conceptual framework then
assisted in the construction of the research questions and protocols, which informed how the data
was collected. Selecting the quality implementation framework (QIF) not only shaped the
questions of this study but also connected the research to the field of implementation science
(Agee, 2009). Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) believe that quality implementation is
best achieved through systematically thinking about the implementation process and believe the
framework can assist those interested in incorporating more evidence-based innovations into
everyday practice.
Because the purpose of this study was to examine the implementation of the PLC
coaching model the PLC coach is at the center of the conceptual framework. The PLC coach
position is instructive, collaborative, and facilitative. The small bubbles coming off of the PLC
coach are embedded and represent the three positions the PLC coach served on their team. The
PLC coach construct includes being the leader of their PLC, the coach of their PLC, as well as a
part time classroom teacher. The teacher, students, and IAs are also embedded as they are
directly impacted by the construct of the PLC coach. The goal, with implementing the PLC
coaching model, is to strengthen and accelerate the impact of the PLCs at ACS by bridging
teacher collaboration and learning to classroom practice (ACS, 2021c).
Following the perimeter of the model, there is a continuous red line with arrows
connecting the phases of quality implementation. It starts and ends with quality in mind. This
conceptual framework can be viewed as a systematic, step-by-step, 3-phase sequence (Meyers,

17

Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). Phase 1 includes initial considerations regarding the host
setting. In this phase assessment strategies, decisions about adaptation, and capacity-building
strategies are all considered. In Phase 2 creating a structure for implementation is decided upon.
Phase 3 includes looking at the ongoing structure once implementation begins. The PLC coaches
will be deep in this work when interviews for this study begin. Last, Phase 4 considers what
might be done to improve future applications. The conceptual framework can be seen as a
strategic plan that would need to be followed in order to achieve fidelity (Meyers, Wandersman,
Katz, et al., 2012). Fidelity of implementation is key to ensuring that an intervention continues to
deliver its intended effects (Cutbush et al., 2017). While fidelity is not the purpose nor goal of
this study, it will provide a useful lens for future application. The conceptual framework will
continue to evolve as new themes emerge through the qualitative research method. More
information about the QIF can be found in Chapter Two.
Significance of the Study
This study may have implications on further development of the PLC coaching model,
professional learning, student learning, and on the creation of implementation tools. Findings
will impact how distributed leadership is used to build systems to support the PLC coach,
including creating time and providing training so teacher leaders can more effectively lead their
teams and coach team leaders (ACS, 2021e). The findings will bring more of a focus on the best
ways to provide feedback and coaching to educators to allow them to learn and grow in their
professional practice and work more effectively in teams. In turn, this may bring increased
attention to the learning aspirations across the system, including more consistency in the use of
high-impact instructional practices which will ultimately impact student learning (ACS, 2021e).
Proper implementation equates to teachers being better supported in meeting diverse needs

18

which will lead to a positive impact on every student learner. Implementation tools for
monitoring and reflecting will be established to determine if what is being tried is successful and
should be continued or modified. “This includes an ability to recognize that not every innovation
will be successful or should be continued” (ACS, 2021e, para. 6).
This study may also have implications on achievement of the Strategic Plan, future
prototype implementation, and teacher recruitment and retention. High-quality implementation
and support are not only needed to sustain the PLC coaching model but are necessary in working
toward the achievement of excellence in the ACS 2027 Strategic Plan and beyond. A research
and development process, centered on quality implementation, will be created and might be
further utilized to explore new and innovative practices and approaches. This study may further
provide knowledge on the infrastructures needed to create, implement, and sustain other
prototypes. The importance of initial considerations regarding the host setting, like conducting a
fit assessment, obtaining explicit buy-in, and building organizational capacity, might be
emphasized. This will also include staff recruitment and maintenance. ACS might better
understand what draws and keeps high-quality teachers at ACS.
On a more global scale, the findings shared through this study may offer guidance to
other schools as they search for ways to prototype and implement a similar model that asks
teacher leaders to focus on both leading and coaching the members of their teams, individually
and collectively within PLCs. More specifically, by examining the promising practices and
limitations of the PLC Coach Model, a better understanding of the necessary infrastructure,
skills, and motivation, to achieve fidelity, will be provided to other institutions. In turn, it will
stress the importance of high-quality implementation and supports that are needed in order to
ensure the success of any pilot model.

19

The field of implementation science and practices are underdeveloped and emerging
slowly in education (Alberts, 2017; Lyon, n.d.; Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012).
Therefore, further exploration of how concepts can be integrated and utilized in high-quality
educational studies and implementation practice must be considered (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017;
Durlak & DuPre, 2008). This study may contribute to the field of implementation science and
serve as a guide on how to integrate and utilize concepts. Lyon (n.d.) and Meyers, Wandersman,
Katz, et al. (2012) stress the importance of selecting an implementation strategy that is driven
and supported by an implementation framework. A framework can help synthesize and translate
complicated issues that occur during implementation (Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012).
Because it has been found that “high-quality implementation contributes to improved educational
services and thereby to better student outcomes” (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017, p. 29), every school
might consider using a framework to ensure fidelity. Perhaps, the (QIF) used in this study will be
found useful for other institutions.
Limitations
One limitation of research is the limited number of participants involved in prototyping
the PLC coaching model. Ten PLC teams and PLC leaders were selected. The teams included
were: elementary Chinese immersion, elementary and middle school Spanish, Grade 2,
elementary music, elementary Chinese daily language, middle school math, middle school
interdisciplinary team, high school learning support, and high school science. This study was
only interested in the perspectives of promising practices, rather than actually observing them.
These perspectives were limited to those of the PLC coaches and teachers directly involved. The
research did not include the perspectives of the administration, students, or parents. Also, despite
assurances of anonymity, participants may have been concerned with being identified

20

considering the small sample size of this study. It should also be noted that there was a lack of
generalizability to other classrooms, grade levels, and departments at ACS. What worked for
Grade 2 may not work for Grade 1 and what worked in high school science may not work for
high school ELA.
Research bias is another challenge. Maxwell (2013) and Milner (2007) shared that the
multiple and varied positions, roles, and identities, of the researcher, are woven into the
outcomes of the research and it is impossible to eliminate the researcher’s perceptual lens.
Therefore, it is important to pay close attention to how personal values and expectations may
influence the outcomes. The researcher has to be mindful of the bias they may bring to the
findings as they are the key instrument of data collection (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) and
Milner (2007) both say that it is key to explain possible biases and share how the researcher
might deal with them. So, to avoid any bias, with the timing of the pilot, I will take Maxwell’s
(2013) advice and focus more on the intellectual goal of understanding how teachers and coaches
feel about the implementation process (Phase 3) and not focus on Phase 1 aspects like teacher
buy-in and institutional readiness. Another bias I may have to address was my unwillingness to
pilot the program when offered. I had a difficult time understanding how the PLC coach was
going to accomplish everything required with 0.5 release time. Probably the most difficult bias I
had to confront was my frustration with ACS’s current coaching model and the administrative
team’s unwillingness to evaluate and update it. Instead, the administrative team introduced a new
initiative and left the unsuccessful coaching model in place alongside the new model. By keeping
biases front and center, I will be able to consider ways in which they might be wrong.

21

Delimitations
Because the study was limited to one school, the research cannot be generalized for other
schools. Aspects that cannot be generalized are the structures and participation required to
implement a similar model. ACS is a large private school with excellent funding. Implementing
such a model is very expensive and time consuming. Other schools may need to prioritize their
spending differently in order to implement and sustain a PLC coaching model. The PLC coach
requires 0.5 release time, which means a part time teacher will have to be hired to co-teach.
Schools would have to choose to invest in teacher leader release time and consider the necessary
role co-teaching will play (Bierly et al., 2015). The concept of teachers formally leading other
teachers is a bias some schools may also have to overcome (Bierly et al., 2015). This may come
from the administrative team or from another teacher. Teachers also have to be willing to step
into leadership positions. The great teachers need to be willing to impact more than just their
own students (Bierly et al., 2015). According to Bierly et al. (2015) “implementing an effective
distributed leadership model is a significant challenge for any school system” (p. 49). A number
of schools, studied by Bierly et al. (2015), who tried to implement similar models, years later
were still at a standstill due to not having a clear view of the right leadership model to
implement.
Definition of Terms
The definitions below provide clarity around the meanings of terms used throughout this
dissertation.
Cognitive coaching: A non-judgmental mediation of thinking altering “observable
teaching behaviors when inner and invisible cognitive behaviors are rearranged.” The main

22

purpose is to foster one’s potential to “improve abilities of self-monitoring, self-directedness as
well as those of self- modification” (Göker, 2020, p. 561).
Distributive leadership: Leaders within a school who have been given “the autonomy to
make key decisions in their areas of responsibility. Empowering leaders and giving them
ownership of their work” (Neumerski, 2013, p. 315)
Implementation research: The focus of identifying and addressing multi-level factors that
help or impede evidence-based programs and practices adoption and sustainment (Lyon, n.d., p.
1).
Job sharing: A part-time contract in which two employees are jointly responsible for the
workload of one position (Williamson et al., 2015).
Peer-to-peer coaching: A non-evaluative “process in which two or more colleagues work
together on various aspects of teaching, such as analyzing instructional practices, planning
lessons, expanding or refining skills, and implementing new strategies” (Sider, 2019, p. 40).
Professional learning communities (PLC): “An inclusive and mutually supportive group
of people with a collaborative, reflective and growth-oriented approach towards investigating
and learning more about their practice in order to improve pupils’ learning” (Robertson &
Timperley, 2011, p. 2).
PLC coach: An experienced teacher leader who coaches for approximately half their
schedule, supports teachers on their teams, facilitates peer-to-peer learning opportunities, and
strengthens PLC work focused on classroom teaching and learning (ACS, 2021a).
Prototype: A first or preliminary version of a device or vehicle from which other forms
are developed. This term is used interchangeably with the word pilot.

23

Quality implementation: “Putting an innovation into practice in a way that meets the
necessary standards to achieve the innovation’s desired outcomes” (Meyers, Wandersman, Katz,
et al., 2012, p. 482).
Radical candor: When you care personally and challenge directly at the same time. It
builds trust, opens communication that can help achieve high results, and addresses management
fears (Scott, 2019, p. 18).
Rapport: A harmonious relationship in which people communicate well due to
understanding each other’s feelings or ideas (Rogers, 2013, p. 21).
Teacher coach (TC): A peer coaching model implemented by Star City Schools that
organizes teachers around strong teams with a team lead who spends part of the day coaching
and growing other teachers (SCS, 2018a).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduced the problem of
practice and shared the research questions. Chapter Two provides a summary of the current
literature. Topics include the benefits and limitations of coaching, coaching models, cognitive
coaching, Star City School’s TC model, and the latest findings on implementation research. The
methodology is presented in Chapter Three, which includes a discussion of the participants,
instruments used, data collection, and analysis of the data. Chapter Four presents the findings,
data collection results and analysis. Finally, Chapter Five shares the implications for practice and
future research is asserted and recommended.

24

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will lead the reader through the impact of coaching as well as its
features, benefits, and limitations. This review will then cover the structures and skills the
professional learning community (PLC) coach must obtain to successfully utilize cognitive
coaching. Then, it will share a summary of how Star City Schools implemented and sustained its
Coach (TC) program and the program will be evaluated as a teacher leadership model. Finally,
this chapter will synthesize the critical steps necessary to ensure quality implementation of new
innovation from adoption to institutionalization.
The Impact of Coaching
Teacher coaching as described by Aguilar (2019) is a form of professional development
(PD) with a peer who is willing to engage in the reflection and learning cycle. Coaching has
become increasingly popular across the globe as a way to provide sustained, embedded PD.
However, coaching is not new in the educational setting and was first researched in the 1980s by
Showers and Joyce (1983). They stressed the fact that when a coaching component is added after
new training, and implemented effectively, teachers will more often transfer their new learning
into practice (Joyce & Showers, 1983). Joyce and Showers (1983) were also the first to use a
peer coaching model that focused on full time teachers coaching each other. Since then, many
other models have been created, including team coaching, cognitive coaching, content focused
coaching, instructional coaching, technical coaching, reflective coaching, and transformational
coaching (Aguilar, 2019). While coaching may be relatively new, there is a great deal of research
on the topic and considerable knowledge of coaching tools that help teachers be successful
(Sailors & Shanklin, 2010).

25

Benefits of Coaching
There is a general consensus that educators need more knowledge, skills, practice, and
support. Research has found that coaching is a cost-effective form of ongoing PD that can fill
these needs (Aguilar, 2013; Aguilar, 2019; Hawk, 2020; Sailors & Shanklin, 2010). As teachers
work directly with a coach to set goals and work to meet them, the PD also becomes more
personal since teachers are given a voice in their professional learning and development (Hawk,
2020). It has also been found that coaches can create an opportunity for teachers to reflect
deeply, have powerful conversations, and take risks in order to change instructional practices
(Aguilar, 2013; Hawk, 2020).
Kraft and Blazar (2018) analyzed over 60 studies and found that coaching works. They
found that teachers who had been coached improved their instructional practices “as much as, or
more than, the difference in effectiveness between a novice and a teacher with 5-10 years of
experience” (p. 69). They found that coaching improved the “quality of teacher instruction and
its effects on student achievement by 0.49 standard deviations and 0.18 standard deviations,
respectively” (Kraft & Blazar, 2018, p. 69). This proved to be more impactful than traditional PD
and most other interventions (Kraft & Blazar, 2018). Studies have also found that coaching has
many benefits to not only teacher’s PD but to the social-emotional and academic needs of
children (Aguilar, 2019; Hawk, 2020). Sailors and Shanklin (2010) reported that high school
students, whose teachers had just an extra year of coaching, had greater gains in reading and
students who attended schools with strong coaching programs scored higher on standardized
assessments.

26

Limitations of Coaching
Several studies found that many coaching programs fall short because they lack
intentionality and strategy (Aguilar, 2019; McGatha, 2008). Aguilar (2019) explains that the root
of the problem is a lack of structure for coaching programs. The results are teachers not knowing
how to utilize a coach and principals not knowing whether coaching is worth the investment.
However, McGatha (2008) points out that simply identifying the structure does not provide the
depth of understanding that is needed to support a teacher’s professional growth. A large part of
this is attributed to Aguilar’s (2019) finding that coaches receive the least amount of professional
training in schools. Coaching does not require a certificate or credentials and coaches rarely get
PD on adult learning. Aguilar believes that “understanding adult learning is essential to effective
coaching” (2013, p. 55).
Other studies have found that each coaching model has different intentions and all are not
equally useful in moving teachers toward becoming a reflective and self-directed practitioner
(Coasta & Garmston, 2015; McGatha, 2008). Hawk (2020) and Odden and Picus (2020)
maintain that coaches are often spread too thin and principals have been found to use coaches in
more administrative ways than for individualized PD. Results from a 2004 study, conducted by
Knight (2009), concluded that 2,000 coaches raised frequent concern that they were asked to
complete so many noninstructional tasks they had little time left to work with teachers. This
might be attributed to what Kraft and Blazar (2018) found in regard to maintaining program
fidelity when programs become too large. They discovered that as the number of teachers
involved increased, the average effectiveness of the coaching program declined. They saw
similar patterns when they tested for evidence of potential scale-up implementation. Some of the
significant challenges discovered, during the scale-up process, were finding enough expert

27

coaches, keeping programs cost effective, maintaining program personalization, and teacher’s
willingness to actively engage (Kraft & Blazar, 2018). It is also difficult to grasp how often
coaches should visit other teachers to maximize their usefulness (Sider, 2019). Aguilar (2019)
found that coaching programs are most successful when organizations encourage and commend
those who seek out opportunities to grow and do not coerce or mandate their employees to
participate. Similarly, Knight (2011) found that when teachers are forced to work with a coach,
they often see it as a punishment. “However, when teachers are offered coaching as one of many
ways in which they can conduct professional learning, they often see it as valuable” (p. 19).
Cognitive Coaching
Some institutions have turned to peer mentoring and peer coaching models as ways to
create a supportive, inclusive academic community (Bair, 2017). Cognitive coaching, developed
by Costa and Garmston (1989) as a staff development technique, is one such peer mentoring
model that provides a structured process for peer coaching and the one ACS will utilize in their
PLC coaching model. Cognitive coaching has been used in public schools for almost 2 decades
and Akbari (2007), Bair (2017), Batt (2010), and Göker (2020) recently provided compelling
data on the positive outcomes of using it as a faculty development model. Bair (2017) states,
“The fundamental premise of cognitive coaching is that individuals have inner resources to
achieve excellence; the role of a coach is to activate these inner resources by providing non
evaluative guidance to a colleague seeking professional improvement” (p. 80). Bair (2017) found
not only did cognitive coaching build professional community and trust but these PD experiences
were translated into teaching in more meaningful ways for the participants. Garmston et al.
(1993) concur that this type of model “supports teachers' existing strengths while expanding
previously unexplored capacities” (p. 5). Questions asked by the coach reveal to the teacher’s

28

unexplored areas that may need to be developed (Garmston et al., 1993). This type of
questioning will promote reflective practices and according to Costa and Garmston (2016),
aligns closely with the principles of andragogy. The concept of the reflective teacher has been
the subject of many new studies but the idea of reflective thinking in teaching has been around
for some time. As early as 1933, John Dewey encouraged teachers to use “reflective action” as
opposed to routine actions used by the non-reflective teacher (Dewey, 1939). This “reflective
action” required thoughtful understanding. When teachers reflect on their experiences and use
higher-order thinking to plan, monitor, evaluate, and modify tasks, growth will occur (Costa &
Garmston, 2015). Costa and Garmston (2015) have stated that calibrating conversations, against
set standards, will foster this type of development and growth. Garmston et al. (1993) share that
the ultimate goal, in cognitive coaching, is not to fix teachers but to give teachers autonomy: “the
ability to self-monitor, self-analyze, and self-evaluate” (p. 58). Research suggests that teachers
who analyzed their teaching, to improve instruction, were more likely to change than if they
were told to change by a supervisor (Moche, 2000).
Benefits of Cognitive Coaching
A study conducted by Batt (2010) found that cognitive coaching adds substantial value to
traditional training activities. “Just as students need guided practice to become adept at newly
acquired skills, teachers benefit substantially from cognitive coaching while they strive to apply
new instructional strategies in the midst of multiple demands on their time” (Batt, 2010, p.
1005). Batt (2010) also believes “cognitive coaching may be a cost effective means to earn
dividends on professional development investments” (p. 1005). Research conducted by Akbari
(2007) and Göker (2020) shows that reflective practice can result in an increase in teacher job
satisfaction, an increase in self-efficacy, and can improve interpersonal relationships with

29

colleagues and students. Garmston et al. (1993) found that cognitive coaching is a powerful
process that promotes a collaborative culture, “increases comfort with professional inquiry, and
supports experimentation and continued professional growth” (p. 6). Cognitive coaching
promotes risk taking, open-mindedness, and a commitment to continuous learning. It deepens
reflective skills, fosters collegiality, and develops cognitive autonomy (Garmston et al., 1993).
Cognitive Coaching Skills
Cognitive coaching uses a three-phase cycle: pre-conference, observation, and post-
conference (Garmston et al., 1993). Garmston et al. (1993) claim these cycles help the teacher
improve instructional effectiveness by becoming a more reflective teacher. The PLC coach has
calibrating conversations with the teacher, during the pre-conference and post conference, which
are designed to help the teacher reach their personal goal or the objectives of the standard.
During the post conference it is the teacher, not the coach, who evaluates the lesson’s success
(Garmston et al., 1993). During these calibrating conversations, the coach uses the basic tools of
rapport, paraphrasing, and asking questions to stimulate the teacher’s thinking (Costa &
Garmston, 2015).
The first necessary skill, the cognitive coach must obtain involves establishing rapport.
Rapport implies having harmony or affinity with one another or simply stated, getting along with
each other. This is best done by building trust between the coach and teacher by maintaining a
non-judgmental stance (Costa & Garmston, 2015). Because cognitive coaching comes with
difficult conversations, beginning with positive presuppositions (assuming the best about
everyone’s intentions) will significantly change the dynamic of conversations and interactions. In
Bair’s 2017 study one coach shared, “cognitive coaching demanded positive presuppositions.
When I asked questions with genuine positive presuppositions, I was better able to discover in

30

candidates’ responses opportunities for nurturing their own self-direction.” Costa and Garmston
(2016) stated something very similar when they said all interactions must begin with positive
presuppositions, or positive assumptions about the capability of the person being coached.
Assuming the best in others will take some extra vulnerability on the part of the coach, but
according to Bair (2017) there seemed to be a relationship between the willingness to be
vulnerable and the emergence of trust with others. Costa and Garmston (2016) also believe one
of the coach’s roles is to help leaders develop and model the character traits that lead to trusting
relationships. However, doing so depends on the coach’s own trustworthiness. “Developing trust
requires coaches to take on moral leadership and develop bonds with those they coach in order to
model trust throughout the school” (Costa & Garmston, 2015, p. 48).
To further support difficult conversations and build rapport, Scott’s (2019) framework
called radical candor was found to be beneficial. The foundation of Scott’s philosophy is to “care
personally” while you “challenge directly” (Scott, 2019). Scott (2019) emphasizes that in order
to “care personally” one must care deeply about the whole person, not just the person’s work
outcomes. The coach must take time to get to know the teachers they work with on a human
level. To “challenge directly” means introducing a healthy dose of candor into the workplace.
However, Scott (2019) says that candor should be motivated by care and should not be used as a
license to be unnecessarily harsh. Delivering negative feedback is a difficult component of
leadership, but necessary, and it is best done with high levels of both compassion and frankness
(Scott, 2019). Radical candor is offered as a simple framework and not as an academic resource.
The second necessary skill, the cognitive coach must obtain, is the art of paraphrasing.
Good paraphrasing helps the teacher reflect on the lesson and decision making behaviors in the
classroom that led to their chosen teaching methodology (Moche, 2000). Garmston (2008)

31

believes paraphrasing is used by most as a language skill, when it is truly a listening skill. He
shares that listening and then paraphrasing well is hard work but can become easier by
improving listening skills. Garmston (2008) worries that phrases such as, I think I hear you
saying, may be sensed as inauthentic, selfish, and robotic. He suggests turning I into you at the
beginning of a paraphrasing statement. This shifts the message back to the respondent and makes
them feel truly heard. Garmston (2008) and Moche (2000) believe that paraphrasing helps the
teacher check for understanding and can help clarify their thinking while teaching. This will
assist the teacher in analyzing and drawing inferences from the lesson, which will help the
teacher apply new learnings to future teaching situations. Garmston (2008) shared three types of
paraphrasing: acknowledge and clarity, summarize and organize, and shift discourse to a higher
or lower logical level. The first type of paraphrasing, acknowledge and clarity, serves as a
mirror, reflecting what has been understood (Garmston, 2008). When misstated, elaboration can
be used to correct and clarify. Summarize and organize, the second type of paraphrasing,
clarifies a speaker’s thinking (Garmston, 2008). The listener stops listening for details and listens
for themes or patterns to share back to the speaker (Garmston, 2008). Garmston (2008) says this
type of paraphrasing works well for more complex issues or a speaker who thinks aloud. The
final type of paraphrasing, which shifts discourse to a higher or lower logical level of the
conversation, is used when a speaker is either “exceptionally abstract or exclusively concrete”
and the listener is having a difficult time detecting meaning (Garmston, 2008, p. 54). The listener
would listen for what they believe is the unexpressed meaning and then, using an approachable
voice, paraphrase using inferences and exploratory language (Garmston, 2008). Good
paraphrasing not only help the teacher reflect on their teaching and methodology, but can also be
adopted by the teacher. Bair (2017) discovered that through cognitive coaching, teachers learned

32

the art of paraphrasing from their coach, used it with their students, and became more conscious
of truly listening to their students.
The third and final skill, the Cognitive Coach must obtain, is the ability to ask questions.
The purpose of asking questions is to help the teacher improve instructional effectiveness by
becoming more reflective about teaching (Garmston et al., 1993). The pre-conference
discussions revolved around four basic questions (Garmston et al., 1993):
1. What are your objectives?
2. How will you know when you've reached your objectives?
3. What is your plan?
4. On what other aspects of your teaching do you want information? (p. 58)
Bair (2017) reported that teachers felt the initial questions were easy to answer and helped clarify
the objectives for the day's lesson. During the post conference or reflective conference is when
the teacher evaluates their lesson in terms of what their intentions were (Costa & Garmston,
1994). According to Foster (2013) the post conference is the most important time in the coaching
session. Questions are carefully constructed and designed to challenge and stimulate teachers’
intellectual capabilities (Foster, 2013). The coach utilizes open-ended questions, probing
questions, and asks the teacher to point toward specific aspects of the lesson to support his/her
ideas about the lesson (Garmston, 1993). The coach may also facilitate the discussion in a way
that asks the teacher to use essential cognitive and analytic skills that will develop the teacher’s
ability to self-evaluate and self-coach (Garmston, 1993). The coach might also use mediative
questioning, as a way to help the teacher go beyond reflection and impact problem solving and
action to better their practice (Garmston, 1993). Garmston et al. (1993) found that teachers
initially found the silence and wait time of such questions uncomfortable. Teachers also reported

33

being torn between providing honest answers and answers that a good teacher would give. Costa
and Garmston (1989) perceive the type of questioning cognitive coaching utilizes, which are
used to help refine the teacher’s thought process, to be non-threatening because teachers are
active participants and they are regarded as the expert.
Teacher Coach: Star City Schools
In 2013, under Dr. Smith’s leadership, Star City Schools (SCS) implemented a peer
coaching model that became known as the teacher coach (TC) model. In 2017 Star City Schools
was named a Great District for Great Teachers, one of just nine school districts in the nation to
earn the award (SCS, 2018a). The winning of this award was largely attributed to the TC model
which started in 14 schools in 2013 and grew to almost every Star school by 2017. Boasting a
90% effective rating from teachers, TC schools organize teachers around strong teams with a
team lead who spends part of the day coaching and growing other teachers (SCS, 2018a). The
team lead may also observe, co-teach, provide feedback, review student work, or lead
collaborative planning among teacher teams, while still getting part of the day to teach students
directly. SCS (2019) shared that 86% of teachers said that working with a team lead helped
improve their teaching practice. Curtis (2013), when referring to ambitious and cohesive schools,
spoke of Star as being a district that focused on teacher leadership efforts that effectively lead
colleagues in improvement strategies that increase student success. Curtis (2013) spoke about
how building the “capacity of its most effective teachers to lead their colleagues in implementing
school-specific improvement strategies,” helped retain top talent (p. 5). Bierly et al. (2015) found
that SCS saw a significant improvement in teachers’ morale in schools that piloted the TC
program. The Net Promoter Score of teachers in pilot schools was 47% higher than for all

34

teachers they surveyed and significantly higher than for teachers in other Star schools (Bierly et
al., 2015).
The TC Model
SCS started in 2013 by piloting a model in just 14 of its 185 schools. After the initial
pilot, the district modified how it organized teacher teams and then added 26 schools in 2014–
2015 and 31 more in 2015–2016, for a total of 71 schools (SCS, 2019). TC, which was originally
referred to as Distributed Leadership, was created with the goal of “keeping the most talented
teachers in the classroom, while still providing leadership roles and opportunities” (SCS, 2019,
p.18). Another goal of TC was to improve the quality and frequency of coaching of all teachers
and distribute some of the evaluation burden from the school administrators to the team lead
(SCS, 2019). SCS has utilized the coach as evaluator despite the strong objection of many
studies (Joyce & Showers, 1996; Showers, 1985; Slater & Simmons, 2016).
Individual schools in SCS were empowered to tailor the TC model around things like the
amount of release time team leads received and the construction of the teacher teams, but had to
use the same working version of the TC model (Bierly et al., 2015). This ensured every school
had the same working parts which made it easier for SCS to share what it learned, about best
practices, from the pilot program (Bierly et al., 2015). According to the SCS superintendent, Dr.
Smith, it was the system-wide approach, used in piloting the program, that ultimately allowed it
to scale what worked best (SCS, 2019).
SCS had 1,210 teacher leaders in 2018–2019 and 492 of these teachers received release
time (SCS, 2019). With 1,210 teacher leaders receiving a stipend and 492 of those being team
leads, which required a part time teacher to give them time out of the classroom, TC became a
very expensive program. SCS (2019) considered the cost to be well worth it since the learning

35

gains were significant. According to a SCS (2019) analysis, “teachers supported by a team lead
demonstrated higher growth than teachers who were not supported by a team lead.” However,
upon the writing of this article, SCS was calling for a cost-benefit analysis to be a key next step.
SCS created The Teacher Coach Operations Guide as a step by step on how to navigate
the systems and successfully implement TC in other schools (SCS, n.d.). There are three phases
in the operations guide: building collective leadership capacity, planning and rollout, driving
instructional improvement, and reflecting and making adjustments (SCS, n.d.). Each phase has
focus areas that are further broken down into definitions, essential questions, objectives, and key
action steps. Essentially, a school that would like to implement TC could utilize the SCS website
to become knowledgeable about the entire process. In addition to the step by step guide, SCS’s
website has information on team lead release time, stipend amounts, and training (SCS, n.d.).
They also provide resources for principals that will assist with hiring for positions and adjusting
teams. The outline of the TC Operation Guide is provided in Figure 3.

36

Figure 3
The Teacher Coach Operations Guide

Note. From TC Operations Guide, by Star City Schools, n.d.
(https://teacherleader.dpsk12.org/tlc-operations-guide/). In the public domain.

37

Star has often been regarded as a national model when it comes to building teacher
leadership capacities (SCS, 2019). However, locally, not all investments have been well
received. Star had massive teacher strikes in 2019 and their superintendent, Dr. Smith, resigned
after 10 years of service. SCS (2019) is left with many critical questions, chief among those:
“what’s worked, and what policies and practices are missing and preventing teachers from being
supported? How does this translate into supporting students?” (p. 21).
TC Case Studies
The three case studies, conducted by SCS, were designed to illustrate how TC can be
designed to thrive in a variety of settings, how they can help improve the coaching teachers
receive, and how they can improve the quality of instruction in the classroom (SCS, 2018b).
Each school studied had its own context and challenges, but through foundation building,
transparency, investing in support structures, and dedication to developing teacher leaders the
voice of distributive leadership was brought to life (SCS, 2018b).
George Washington High School
With 1,300 students and 81 teachers, George Washington High is one of the largest
secondary schools in SCS (SCS, 2018b). George Washington is an urban school with 93% of its
students receiving free or reduced lunch and 73% considered English language learners (SCS,
2018b). There is a sense of urgency to improve student growth as the school has performed
poorly on past standardized assessments. Only 6.1% of Grade 9 students met expectations in
Algebra I on the state assessment and only 12.5% of Grade 9 students met expectations on the
English Language Arts state assessment (SCS, 2018b). In 2016–2017 George Washington scaled
up its TC model with nine team leads, nine team specialists, and two team ambassadors (SCS,
2018b). The principal started the scale up process with a rigorous selection process which

38

required current team leads to reapply to their positions. The team was selected in March of 2016
and shortly following they started meeting once a week to outline the work they would be doing
in their PLCs (SCS, 2018b). They decided that everyone would talk about a problem of practice
on Tuesdays, on Wednesdays they would work with the data, and on Friday they would plan
together (SCS, 2018b). Teachers shared that the spring and summer planning, and taking time to
build team and leadership capacity, were critical to the successful implementation in the fall
(SCS, 2018b). Training and development did not stop once the school year began. The assistant
principal gave consistent feedback to the team leads and sat in on feedback conversations
between the team leads and teachers (SCS, 2018b). Feedback sessions were also recorded and
watched by the instructional leadership team to discuss and help with calibration of SCS growth
and performance assessments (SCS, 2018b). TC took a considerable amount of the assistant
principal’s time but she felt it was making a huge change in the school and well worth it (SCS,
2018b).
One of the areas of growth was expanding the capacity for analyzing and using student
data. Student data was used as a comparative tool, against the rest of the district, and used to
develop spring lessons and unit plans (SCS, 2018b). Observational data was also used to improve
teacher instruction. The assistant principal broke down single content learning objectives into
about 12 points and team leads would do 6–7 walkthroughs observing teachers for very specific
indicators (SCS, 2018b). They found they could really narrow down where teachers were hurting
and needed to improve. George Washington published what they learned in the district staff
newsletter and used what they learned from the walkthroughs to drive their whole staff
professional learning sessions (SCS, 2018b). Professional learning became more relevant and
actionable. The assistant principal also said that she saw teachers become more intentional about

39

backward planning and engaged with student work on a weekly basis (SCS, 2018b). Math was a
big area of growth for George Washington. The year before implementing TC they had a 45%
failure rate in Algebra I and just a year later they were down to 28% failure rate (SCS, 2018b).
The decrease in failure rates is attributed to more targeted instruction due to the analysis of
student data.
Kaizer Elementary
When looking into implementing TC, the teachers at Kaizer Elementary were primarily
concerned that other teachers would be evaluating them instead of administration (SCS, 2018b).
The principal at Kaizer realized she needed substantial buy-in, from the teacher, if TC was going
to be fully successful. The Kaizer team was given another year to design what TC might look
like at their school (SCS, 2018b). The principal said, “Having the flexibility to slow the process
of implementation helped immensely” (SCS, 2018b, p. 7). All schools are given a 4 month
process called “TC Design” to develop a distributive leadership structure for the upcoming
school year and beyond (SCS, 2018b). Kaizer dedicated extra time to adjust and to make sure the
design process was both transparent and inclusive. Grade level and specials teachers, who were
part of the design team, not only impacted the model but also helped with getting other teachers
on board (SCS, 2018b). In order to make everyone feel included in the process, and not being
done behind closed doors, all design workshops and decisions were fully open to all staff (SCS,
2018b). All the team documents and applications were done in Google Drive and everyone was
given rights to view (SCS, 2018b). Staff were always able to give feedback and ask questions.
Openness and transparency were also utilized in the selection process of the team leads.
Teachers were allowed to weigh in on who they thought the team leads should be. It was
important and valuable to be involved since the team lead would be evaluating the teachers

40

(SCS, 2018b). The two teachers selected had been at the school for a few years and had already
been deemed as trustworthy and professional. The principal also offered the team leads extra
support as initial observations and evaluations began due to the fact that teachers were wary of
peer evaluations (SCS, 2018b). One of the team leads shared that as the year progressed
teachers’ attitudes started to shift. Teachers became more accustomed to seeing him in their
classrooms and even started seeking him out about being observed and wanting feedback (SCS,
2018b).
Star Center for 21st Century Learning
At only 6 years old, Star Center for 21st
t
Century Learning (SC21), is an alternative
pathway for students who have struggled in traditional SCS schools (SCS, 2018b). The high
school operates on a quarter system and new students from across the district, who are hoping to
get their education back on track to graduate, can start at the beginning of each new quarter
(SCS, 2018b). The school has a small staff of 19 and serves a high-needs population of 220
students. In 2014, SC21 received a red rating, the lowest possible rating on the School
Performance Framework (SCS, 2018b). SC21, being a tight-knit community, was concerned
about teachers evaluating other teachers. Another concern was that the school was in the middle
of a curriculum change. Some of the challenges they faced were teachers teaching multiple
subjects with multiple lesson plans, keeping students engaged and on schedule to graduate, and
working to meet individual academic needs (SCS, 2018b). In 2015, SC21 started the
implementation process with two team leads and two team specialists. The assistant principal and
principal were highly engaged in the process and held consistent and highly structured meetings
each week. The team decided to address student engagement, curriculum changes, and effective
teaching practices (SCS, 2018b). The team recognized the necessity to develop the coach so they

41

could effectively guide their teams to carry out their improvement plan. This enabled them to
establish an internal culture of high expectations and focus.
One of the team leads spoke about the number of skills that are involved in being a strong
coach. “You have to ask questions, you have to understand educational best practices, you have
to know how to write content learning objectives, and how to build relationships” (SCS, 2018b,
p. 10). Additional training in the areas of evaluating, coaching, and curriculum were crucial to
successful implementation of TC (SCS, 2018b). With team lead and administration support,
SC21 was able to move their curriculum away from strict credit recovery to more standard
district curriculum with a twist to keep students engaged. The team leads were also given time
throughout the month to align scope and sequence to data-driven instruction based on the
standards. This included close reading of the teacher's lesson plans and giving feedback weekly.
Two years after implementation, SC21 was starting to see the fruits of their labor. Students had
grown academically, they were graduating nearly twice as many students as before, and the
school rating jumped over orange to yellow (SCS, 2018b). Distributive leadership became the
best vehicle to address the unique challenges at SC21. One of the team leads spoke about the
team’s initial reluctance but how they were wrong (SCS, 2018b). She said “TC helped, not
hindered, the SC21 culture and a large part of that was attributed to the team's co-accountability
to each other” (SCS, 2018b, p. 17).
Miller School of Technology
In 2017 Miller School of Technology had only been in existence for 6 years and had been
through three principals. With 529 students and 29 teachers the school had a yellow, on watch,
performance rating. Miller Tech had 74% of its student population on free or reduced lunch, 65%
identified as English language learners, 10% in special education, and 95% of its school

42

population were students of color. The principal in charge of the school was both new to the
school and in her first year as principal. She inherited the TC model and team leads that were
designed by her predecessors. After completing a needs assessment, the principal quickly
realized the model as it was being executed was “completely defunct and had not been
implemented or followed with fidelity” (SCS, 2018b, p. 11). The team leads did not have the
support of administration, had not received proper training, and there were no systems or
structures within the schedule that supported the team leads to observe the other teachers. The
new principal knew she needed to be transparent about moving forward with the necessary
changes, in order to empower the teachers to build leadership capacities. She did this by offering
10 days of PD before the school year started and had half of the meetings led by the team leads.
During these meetings the team leads shared the “why” that was never communicated in regards
to the systems that were put in place the prior year. The team leads also decided what
components made up a great lesson plan and created common lesson-planning templates for each
department. The results were team leads “leading their departments out of this compliance fog
into a space where they were developing tools that worked for them” (SCS, 2018b, p. 11). Team
leads became seen as equal to administration in building leaders at Miller Tech. The principal
stated that empowerment was crucial and it has to be built on a foundation of support and
development (SCS, 2018b). At Miller Tech the principal team would drop everything to respond
to the needs of the team leads. It was emphasized that team leads were affecting 15 to 20
teachers in the building and principals needed to be accessible to them (SCS, 2018b). The
principal met with each team lead every week to ensure accessibility. The principal of Miller
Tech believes that no one steps out to lead with all the necessary skills (SCS, 2018b). They have
to be developed and one of the best ways to do that is to empower them (SCS, 2018b).

43

The master schedule at Miller Tech was reworked to give distributive leadership teams
time to meet weekly for data analysis as well as common planning (SCS, 2018b). This also
allowed for team leads to have common meeting time, during the school day, with
administration. The meetings focused on problems of practice stemming from observations in the
classrooms, rather than focusing on logistics (SCS, 2018b). The reworking of the schedule
played a large role in the operational and instructional success of the teacher leadership. After 4
years of TC implementation, Miller Tech saw an impact on distributive leadership systems and
structures (SCS, 2018b). It also built the capacity of teachers to improve instruction, and
empowered them to bring problems of practice to the table. Understanding the challenges and
realities of the model is incremental to its implementation success (SCS, 2018b). The principal
stated,
This is really the only model that is sustainable in which every teacher in your building
can get the coaching they need to dramatically improve their practice in a short period of
time. Be humble and just know that you’re not able to do it alone. (SCS, 2018b, p. 12)
In summary, the four case studies conducted by SCS, revealed the importance of
achieving teacher buy-in, being open and transparent in the selection process of the team leads,
and the importance of reworking the schedule so team leads had the time to observe teachers and
analyze data. It was discovered that overall accountability increased when every team member
felt like part of the implementation process and felt like they could give feedback and ask
questions. The importance of developing the coach, so they could effectively guide their teams
was found to be beneficial. One of the most important factors appeared to be the support of the
principals. When the principal provided the necessary support the team leads felt empowered to
build leadership capacities. Teams also benefited when institutions were flexible in the

44

implementation process. Flexibility came in the form of time allowed to implement and
flexibility in the team leads work schedule. Overall, understanding the challenges and realities of
the TC model was incremental to its implementation success. The findings of these
investigations might suggest potential answers to this study's research questions. More
particularly, it might lend insight to the promising practices and perceived limitations of the PLC
coaching model.
Implementation Research
According to Lyon (n.d.), “implementation focuses on identifying and addressing multi-
level factors that help or impede evidence-based programs and practices adoption and
sustainment” (p. 1). In other words, using strategies to adopt and integrate interventions and
change practice patterns in specific settings (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017; Greenhalgh et al.,
2004). Lyon (n.d.) shares that this is done by identifying and applying implementation strategies
that will improve implementation outcomes. “Implementation outcomes refer to the effects of an
implementation strategy on the new intervention, practice, or service” (Lyon, n.d., p. 2).
Examples of implementation outcomes are adoption, fidelity, and reach (Lyon, n.d.). “Service
outcomes refer to the impact that the new intervention, practice, or service has on individuals,
focus populations, or systems” (Lyon, n.d., p. 2). In education, an example of service outcomes
would be improvement in instructional practice that benefits student learning and outcomes.
Prior to the 1980s, it was believed that effective innovation would spread on its own if
early adopters sufficiently promoted it (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017). However, after the 1980s a
move towards evidence-based practices increased interest in purposeful and active
implementation, first in health and later in social welfare and education. “Since the 1990s this
has led to the development of implementation science as a distinct field and discipline working

45

to understand the mechanisms of high-quality implementation” (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017, p.
6). The field of implementation science and practices is rapidly expanding (Alberts, 2017; Lyon,
n.d.; Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012) and findings from Albers and Pattuwage (2017)
confirm that implementation is of interest to education science. However, it is underdeveloped
and emerging slowly in education given the conceptual richness of the field of implementation
(Albers & Pattuwage, 2017). Further exploration of how concepts can be integrated and utilized
in high-quality educational studies and implementation practice must be considered (Albers &
Pattuwage, 2017; Durlak & DuPre, 2008). There are numerous implementation frameworks, at
least 23 factors that affect implementation, and more than 70 strategies have been identified
(Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). The majority of the strategies
are relevant to implementation and sustainment of evidence-based programs and practices in
schools (Lyon, n.d.). However, Durlak and DuPre (2008) purpose that due to the large number of
frameworks and strategies, it is essential that future studies and authors agree on terminology and
operational definitions for implementation studies because “science cannot study what it cannot
measure accurately and cannot measure what it does not define” (p. 342).
Lyon (n.d.) emphasized the selection of an implementation strategy should be driven by
one or more implementation frameworks. Frameworks share key variables that must be
considered when implementing new programs and practices (Lyon, n.d.). A framework can help
synthesize and translate complicated issues that occur during implementation (Meyers,
Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). Lyon (n.d.) shares a list of non-exhaustive implementation
frameworks that have been successfully used in schools (p. 3):
• exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework
• interactive systems framework (ISF)

46

• the national implementation research network’s (NIRN) active implementation
frameworks (AIF)
• the multilevel implementation quality framework
• the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR)
Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) conducted an extensive literature synthesis, of 25
frameworks, and found that there were similar steps in most implementation models. They used
what they found to develop the quality implementation framework (QIF) (Meyers, Wandersman,
& Durlak, 2012). The QIF contains the collective guidance of Rogers’ (2003) classic model and
the Interactive Systems Frame-work for Dissemination and Implementation (Meyers,
Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) share that their QIF
provides a conceptual overview of the critical steps that make up quality implementation and is
focused on the “how to” of implementation.
Quality Implementation Framework (QIF)
Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) defines quality implementation as “putting an
innovation into practice in a way that meets the necessary standards to achieve the innovation’s
desired outcomes” (p. 482). Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) found that most research
has not focused on critical steps for quality implementation, but rather on factors that influence
the overall success of the implementation process, like inherent challenges or contextual factors.
Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) believe that quality implementation is best achieved
through systematically thinking about the implementation process and believe the QIF can assist
those interested in incorporating more evidence-based innovations into everyday practice. The
QIF provides a series of coordinated steps, which include assessment, collaboration and

47

negotiation, monitoring, and self-reflection, which are included to increase the likelihood that the
desired goals will be achieved.
Critical Steps in the QIF Process
The QIF contains four phases and has 14 distinct steps that offer a useful blueprint for
future research and practice (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). The QIF can be viewed
conceptually as a systematic, step-by-step, four-phase sequence. Meyers, Wandersman, and
Durlak (2012) share that most of the steps (10 of the 14) should be addressed before
implementation begins. Critical questions are provided for each step of each phase. The phases
and steps in the QIF, created by Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012, p. 468), are arranged
around the phases outlined in Figure 4.

Figure 4
Quality Implementation Framework

48

49
Note. The arrows suggest that the steps in each of the phases should continue to be addressed
throughout the implementation process. From “The Quality Implementation Framework: A
Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process,” by D. Meyers, J. Durlak and A.
Wandersman, 2012, American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), p. 475. Copyright
2012 by Society for Community Research and Action.

The first phase of implementation primarily focuses on the fit between the innovation and
the host setting. During this phase the implementation should be positioned for scale, by
establishing standards and aligning support structures across the system (Bierly et al., 2015; Earl
et al., 2016; Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). These decisions should be agreed upon by
all parties involved and done prior to stakeholder buy-in (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak,
2012). In order to support new structures, proper training is another critical component of Phase
1. Durlak and DuPre (2008) found that over 20 studies agreed that proper training and technical
assistance were the greatest prevention delivery system of implementation failure. “Training
should help prepare teachers for the new tasks, help provide mastery of specific intervention
skills, and attend to expectations, motivation, and their sense of self-efficacy” (Durlak & DuPre,
2008, p. 338). Many studies have found that active forms of learning promote skill acquisition
and support an emotional atmosphere (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). This might include role playing
and performance feed-back.
The second phase of implementation primarily focuses on the structures that should be
developed to oversee the process (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). “This includes having
a clear plan for implementing the innovation and identifying a team of qualified individuals who
will take responsibility for these issues” (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012, p. 471). This

50

includes establishing key leadership roles, identifying “how those roles will be deployed to
support teams, and what processes the system will need to support the new structure” (Bierly et
al., 2015, p. 51). Earl et al. (2016) encouraged administration to only proceed with teacher
leaders, to lead the change, who were committed and who felt ownership for the changes. Rogers
(2003) noted these influential individuals are adventuresome, open to change, and can help
cultivate an atmosphere conducive to trying new approaches.
Phases 1 and 2 are part of planning and preparing for implementation. The third phase of
implementation is when implementation actually begins and the focus is on ongoing structures.
“There are three important tasks in this phase: providing needed on-going technical assistance to
front-line providers, monitoring on-going implementation, and creating feedback mechanisms”
(Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012, p. 471). This includes the piloting and refining of the
model and gathering feedback from stakeholders to make improvements based on what they
learn (Bierly et al., 2015).
The fourth and final phase of implementation primarily focuses on improving future
applications. “Feedback from the host setting, coupled with retrospective analysis and self-
reflection, is used to identify strengths and weaknesses of the implementation” (Meyers,
Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012, p. 471). This phase has only one critical step, learning from
experience. In the end, a winning model is adopted into institutionalization and positioned for
scale, by establishing standards and aligning support structures across the entire system (Bierly et
al., 2015).
Research Support for QIF
Conclusions from a few individual qualitative case studies supported the use of QIF.
Further support came from two different human service projects that used the QIF as part of a

51

pilot (Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). A consultation process was used for both pilots
and the QIF was used as a facilitation tool. Through the pilot Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al.
(2012) found that the tool served as an “active in-depth planning worksheet that could be revised,
shared, and organized so that phases could be used to formally document progress, barriers, and
group decisions” (p. 493). It is Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) opinion that “this tool
could be beneficial for any project where there is a Support and Delivery System working
together to implement an innovation with quality” (p. 493). Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al.
(2012) concluded that a background in implementation is beneficial and knowledge of the
context is needed to make sure planning is individualized for the setting. Overall, the pilot found
that the QIT is a promising tool for promoting quality implementation. Meyers, Wandersman,
Katz, et al. believes the following:
That while further research is needed on which of its components and actions steps are
most essential for achieving desired outcomes, the QIT will narrow the gap between the
science and practice of implementation and promote the quality use of innovations in
organizations and communities. (2012, p. 494)
Ready Culture
It has been long thought that “teachers who participate in implementation decision
making will have increased buy-in, be more motivated to take action, and thus have greater
impact on school reform” (Turnbull, 2002, p. 235). Surprisingly, Turnbull (2002) found no such
link for either immediate or long-term buy-in. However, she did find that “training, support from
program developers, support from staff members, administrator buy-in, and control over
classroom implementation were stronger and more constant predictors of teacher buy-in to a
school reform program” (p. 235). Lyon (n.d.) similarly found that the most critical determinant

52

of implementation success was recognition of school leadership and system-wide buy-in.
Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) found that 23 out of 25 frameworks evaluated included
steps to secure buy-in from key leaders and front-line staff in the community. The principals are
the most relevant leaders for implementation efforts, but Lyon (n.d.), said one must also consider
lower-level leaders or leadership teams due to the fact that they are closer to the implementation
efforts. Buy-in from school leadership and teachers can produce the long-term dedication that is
needed to successfully implement an initiative (Lyon, n.d; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). To create
a positive implementation climate, among the leadership team, Lyon (n.d.) and Knight (2011)
suggested implementing special training. Lyon (n.d.) also suggested using summer break as an
opportunity in the school calendar to make a new program more sustainable. Achieving buy-in
from a wide range of stakeholders was also found to be critical to a program’s success (Knight,
2011). Contrary to what Turnbull (2002) found, Lyon (n.d.) suggested that including a wide
range of stakeholders in the decision making will increase buy-in. He also suggested promoting
“buy-in through targeted communications, messages, or testimonials from people who are
similar to or respected” by the teachers (p. 5). Bird et al. (2016) noted the importance of
identifying the people who have the greatest influence on the individuals who will be grappling
with behavior change, in order to have them be the ones to share the case for change.
Making Change Last
When new programs are adopted, schools must be deliberate and focused with efforts to
change professional practice. Strategic implementation can be the difference between a program
that fails and a program that creates sustainable change (Lyon, n.d.; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018).
Over 500 studies have been done that offer strong empirical support that the level of
implementation affects the outcomes obtained (Durlak & DePre, 2008). Lyon (n.d.) shared that

53

only 25–50% of schools implement programs with sufficient fidelity to bring about their
intended intervention effects and that only one in three efforts are successful. However, Durlak
and DuPre (2008) explain that positive results can be obtained with levels of 60% and that few
studies have attained levels greater than 80%. No study has attained 100% implementation
fidelity so expecting perfection of implementation is unrealistic (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Lyon
(n.d.) notes that in most cases it takes 2-3 years or more to fully implement a program or model.
Lyon (n.d.) proposes that proper implementation “involves planning, service integration, post-
training support, evaluation, and collaborative problem solving” (p. 6).
Organizational capacity and effective implementation are directly related. Research has
shown that the pace and scale of an initiative cannot exceed employees’ capacity to handle it
(Bird et al., 2016; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). According to Bird et al.
(2016) what might seem manageable to administration can feel very different to someone on the
front line being asked to engage with several initiatives at the same time. “Adding new initiatives
without completing prior ones can exhaust or demoralize employees” (Bird et al., 2016, p. 9).
Bird et al. (2016) shares that in order to prevent this, administration should identify the people
most impacted by the change and document what they have been asked to accomplish in recent
months outside of their normal work.
Importance of Professional Development
Lyon (n.d.) notes that behavior change is highly unlikely without post-training support.
According to Lyon (n.d.), post-training support can increase initiative cost by up to 50%.
However, not including post-training support may cause the initiative to be unsuccessful and
render the initial training as a waste of resources (Lyon, n.d.). Albers and Pattuwage (2017)
reiterated that “training and ongoing support are the most critical implementation strategies

54

reported on in educational studies” (p. 17). Single-exposure training is not sufficient, especially
when it comes to the art of coaching (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Knight, 2011; Lyon et al., 2010; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). Arguilar (2013) explains how
coaches are more than likely masters of content and pedagogy in the classroom but have little
training or knowledge of how to work with adults. Research shows that there are no formal
pathways or training for coaches entering the role and once in the position, coaches receive very
little PD following (Aguilar, 2013). Curtis (2013) emphasizes that it takes time for a teacher
leader to train and do leadership work: “leading a team, coaching and evaluating staff, building
colleagues’ knowledge and skills around the Common Core” (p. 9). Curtis (2013) said the issue
of time to train has not been addressed and instead leadership responsibilities have been piled on
top of full-time teaching loads. Again, this adds to how effective a teacher can lead and can
ultimately lead to burn-out. The research concludes that PD has to be ongoing if a program is
expected to be transformative (Curtis, 2013; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). PD time, perhaps in the
form of release time during the day, should be given to meet before and after observations, to
visit colleagues in order to learn from them, to co-plan, co-teach, and review student data. Knight
(2009) believes PD is important because “coaches need to understand the interventions they are
sharing and they need to understand how to productively employ the coaching process” (p. 20).
Without it, coaches run the risk of wasting money, being ineffective, or even misinforming
teachers.
Ensure Fidelity Through Routine Measurement
It is critical to measure the success of implementation initiatives in order to ensure the
initiative continues to deliver its intended effect (Cutbush et al., 2017; Durlak & DuPre, 2008;
Lyon, n.d.; Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). Fidelity describes to what degree an

55

initiative has been implemented as intended (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017). Durlak and DuPre
(2008) highlight that “without data, research cannot document precisely what program was
conducted or how outcomes should be interpreted” (p. 340). They also remind readers that if an
evaluation is not carefully completed, the implementation is flawed and incomplete.
Surprisingly, research shows that implementation is still examined primarily through process
evaluations rather than formatively (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017). Lyon (n.d.) suggests using
independent sources to evaluate fidelity formatively, so they might be as objective as possible.
Aspen (2014) adds that systems can also establish indicators for measuring success. According to
Aspen (2014, p. 4), some examples of potential indicators for measuring success are as follows:
• principals publicly supporting teacher leaders
• principals clarifying their teacher leaders’ roles
• facilitating release time from teaching or other responsibilities
• providing consistent feedback and guidance
• utilize surveys
• use time use studies with principals, teacher leaders and those they lead
• satisfaction of teacher leaders
Lyon (n.d.) states that most projects are evaluated before the project is fully implemented
which can lead to wrong conclusions about the program’s effectiveness (Lyon, n.d.). Lyon (n.d.)
and Durlak and DuPre (2008) encouraged administration and others involved in the
implementation process to avoid drawing conclusions about a program’s success until multiple
years have passed. This is especially important, in the field of education, as Earl et al. (2016)
notes that changes to teaching have been slower in implementation than other fields. Lyon’s

56

(n.d.) notes that student outcomes need to also be evaluated as adequate implementation
outcomes do not necessarily mean that student outcomes have improved.
Summary of the Literature
This study reviewed current literature concerning the impact of coaching, including the
features, benefits, and limitations. The research confirmed that coaching is a cost-effective form
of ongoing PD that can create an opportunity for teachers to reflect deeply, have powerful
conversations, and take risks in order to change instructional practices (Aguilar, 2013; Aguilar,
2019; Hawk, 2020; Sailors & Shanklin, 2010). The SCS’s implementation of the TC program
was evaluated as a coaching model and the case studies, conducted by SCS, were examined for
strengths and challenges. It was concluded that SCS has created and sustained a leadership
program that effectively leads colleagues in improvement strategies that increase student success.
The chapter conclusion synthesized the critical steps necessary to ensure quality implementation
of new innovation from adoption to institutionalization. It was determined that the QIF is a
beneficial tool that, if used correctly, can increase the likelihood of the desired goals being
achieved. It was also confirmed that when new programs are adopted, schools must be
deliberate, and focused, with efforts to change and sustain professional practices. Emphasis was
placed on PD and organizational capacity in relation to effective implementation.

57

Chapter Three: Methodology
All research, whether quantitative or qualitative, entails an investigation in a systematic
manner that leaves the researcher knowing more about something than when he or she first
engaged in the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The method selected can determine the
success and overall quality of the research. Working through the systematic process, of the
selected method, informs decisions on a particular course of action (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) suggests that qualitative researchers are most often interested in
studying natural environments and focus on understating how people make sense of and
experience the world around them. Because this study explored the human experience and sought
to understand the implementation of the professional learning community (PLC) coaching model
at American Community School (ACS), it utilized a narrative qualitative methodological
approach. This study prioritized the perspectives of promising practices and limitations, rather
than actually observing them.
“The researcher is the one who, with all of his or her humanity, serves as the primary
instrument in all that transpires” (Locke et al., 2010, p. 237). Because of this, I needed to be
aware of my history with the topic, the context, the participants, and the methodology (Locke et
al., 2010). This chapter presents the methods and procedures that were utilized in this study. It
includes a discussion of the demographics and characteristics of the participants and shares the
instruments and protocols that were used. Finally, a plan for data collection and analysis is
proposed.
Sample and Population
Non-probability, or purposeful, “sampling is the method of choice for most qualitative
research since generalization in a statistical sense is not a goal of qualitative research” (Merriam

58

& Tisdell, 2015, p. 96). The logic of purposeful sampling stems from an emphasis on in-depth
understanding which is achieved by focusing on information-rich cases (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). To begin purposeful sampling, selection criteria must be determined that directly reflect
the purpose of the study. Johnson and Christensen explain that “a good sample is one that is
representative of the population it came from” (2017, p. 253).
In order to provide the time and structure for teachers to learn from each other and
receive just-in-time feedback and coaching in their classroom (ACS, 2021b), the PLC coaching
model was introduced to the faculty and staff of ACS in November 2020. Teams interested in
prototyping the model were asked to apply. Nearly 2 dozen teaching teams applied to participate
and 10 teams were selected. The PLC chair, from each team, stepped into the PLC coaching
position and took on the PLC construct of teacher, leader, and coach. This study utilized
qualitative research and focused on identifying descriptively valuable perspectives and
experiences of individuals at ACS (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), therefore, it used non-
probability sampling. Due to the specific nature of this study, purposeful sampling, with the
teams who prototyped the model, was utilized. The teams who participated in the prototyping of
the model can be found in Table 1.

59

Table 1
PLC Coaching Model Participants
Division and department Number of teachers in PLC
1 Elementary Chinese immersion 9
2 Elementary and middle school Spanish 5
3 Elementary Grade 2 8
4 Elementary school music 5
5 Elementary school Chinese daily language 21
6 Middle school math 4
7 Middle school interdisciplinary team 18
8 High school learning support 3
9 High school science (multiple subjects) 6
10 High school science (multiple subjects) 6
Total number of PLC coaches and teachers 95

ACS purposefully recruited from across the divisions and departments in order to
understand how the model might be implemented throughout the school. Similar criteria was
called upon when strategically selecting participants in order to collect multiple data points. This
ensured that no division was excluded from sharing the promising practices and limitations of the
prototype and that the sample was representative of the population.
Locke et al. (2010) warned that the way participants are recruited poses one of the most
serious and common threats to validity and generalizability of the study, which can have major

60

implications on the conclusion of the study. Therefore, the recruitment process was pre-planned,
well organized, and conducted with professionalism (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). Locke et al.
(2010) provide good evidence that the higher the number in the sample for a study, the greater
the likelihood that the findings will characterize the wider population that the subject sample
intended to represent. However, a trade-off with qualitative research is between sample size and
depth. “The more participants, the better their diversity and representativeness can be assessed,
but the less you can learn about each one” (Locke et al., 2010, 162). Ultimately, a good balance
between the number of participants and allotted time is key to the depth that can be achieved.
A direct appeal, in the form of an email, was sent to the 10 PLC coaches and their
participating PLC team members in effort to recruit a good number of volunteers. The response
was more than sufficient and tendered results in excess of what was needed to conduct the study.
To ensure balanced perspectives, participants were carefully selected for interviews. Gender,
age, and years of teaching experience were all considered. The goal was to interview a PLC
coach and a teacher from each division and a PLC coach and a teacher from one of the language
programs, so eight total experts. In the end, nine teachers, who received consistent coaching,
were selected as well as five coaches.
Instrumentation
Because a “qualitative researcher is interested in understanding how people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences,” the items used for this research project were interviews, surveys, and document
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 6). The interview protocol and surveys were crafted and
used. In qualitative research, the researcher is the principal instrument and it is their job to assess
the capabilities, dependability, and potential biases of that instrument (Locke et al. 2010). Locke

61

et al. (2010) share that “it is absolutely essential that they recognize their own subjectivity and
monitor how that is functioning in the research context” (p. 223).
Reliability and validity are to quantitative research as credibility and trustworthiness are
to qualitative research. Salkind (2017) asserted, “if the tools you use to collect data are unreliable
or invalid then the results of any test of any hypothesis will be inconclusive” (p. 11). To
maximize reliability and validity, the instruments were designed with the highest quality. To
ensure they were high-quality they were standardized so they accurately measured what was
intended. This was accomplished by keeping the research questions, target population, and
purpose in mind. The research questions were centered around the implementation of the PLC
coaching model, the target population were the PLC coaches and teachers who were prototyping
the model, and the purpose was to find out what worked well and might be improved upon
before implementing the program school wide. Interviewing PLC coaches and teachers,
surveying coaches and teachers, and using document analysis provided data triangulation which
increased the credibility of the study.
Interviews
To increase flexibility, a semi-structured interview process was utilized for individual
interviews. Interviewing is the most common form of data collection in qualitative research
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Agee (2009) reminds us that “developing good research questions
requires understanding as inquiries into other people’s lives are always an exercise in ethics” (p.
440). To ensure the interview process was ethical, I obtained direct consent from all my
participants and informed them of their rights as a research participant. As suggested by
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) the questions were framed without bias so that the participants did
not think I was looking for one specific answer or response. Well-crafted questions addressed

62

sensitive topics and pursued issues that might make participants feel uncomfortable. As a result,
participants had the right to decline to answer any question. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) advise
to take early steps to keep data confidential, this advice was employed and continued to be put
into practice throughout the study. Leading and double-barrelled questions were also avoided. As
suggested by Elliott and Timulak (2015), an interview guide was used to help focus the interview
without imposing too much structure. Interviewees were also provided with the list of questions
prior to the interview. A complete list of questions for coaches can be found in Appendix B: PLC
Coach Interview Protocol, and a complete list of questions for teachers can be found in Appendix
C: Teacher Interview Protocol.
Qualitative research allows for flexibility and does not follow the rigid and mechanical
rules of quantitative studies. The questions presented served as a general guide and allowed for
additional open-ended and clarifying questions to be asked. The hope was that unexpected
understandings would emerge as the participants shared openly about their experiences. Because
there was room for unscripted human interaction, unscripted follow-up questions emerged. “It
follows, then, that, when one speaks of a ‘design’ for qualitative research, the referent often
resembles an evolving set of questions and responsive tactics rather than the execution of a fixed
plan” (Locke et al., 2010, p. 227).
Interviews with PLC coaches and interviews with teachers produced two data sets. First,
interviewing the PLC coaches provided information as to how ACS implemented the model and
answered several critical questions. What type of training the coaches received? How prepared
they felt to take on the PLC coaching construct and what type of on-going support they received?
Second, the teachers who were coached provided information on the benefit, promising
practices, and limitations of the model. Was the coaching effective and did it accomplish the goal

63

of connecting PLC work to learning in the classroom? What were their perceptions of the
infrastructure, skills, and motivation needed to implement the model with quality?
Survey
Because the validity of a test is constrained by how reliable it is, extra precaution was
taken to make sure the survey was reliable (Salkind, 2017). In order to create a reliable
instrument, the cognitive load of the survey was considered. This included the number of
questions and the time it took to complete it. The goal was to have as many participants finish
the survey as possible so the timing of the survey also needed to be considered. Anonymity was
protected by using an online host, Qualtrics. The survey was also piloted in order to know which
items were unclear and needed to be reworded or deleted. A complete list of questions for
coaches can be found in Appendix D: Coach Survey on the PLC Coaching Model, and a
complete list of questions for the teachers can be found in Appendix E: Teacher Survey on the
PLC Coaching Model.
“Survey designs are intended to systematically describe the facts and characteristics of a
given phenomenon or the relationships between events and phenomena” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015, p. 5). The phenomenon is the PLC coaching model and the event is the implementation of
that model. The relationship between the two was evaluated through the survey. The online
survey was given to the 95 faculty and staff who were involved in the implementation of the
model. The rationale and survey protocol were provided in the email as well as at the beginning
of the survey. A suggested time frame for completing the survey was 15–20 minutes. The
questions were written to provoke answers to the research questions and framed with the quality
implementation framework (QIF). Participants identified the infrastructures, skills, and
motivation that was needed to implement the model with quality. The survey also provided data

64

on training, support, and personal perspectives of the promising practices and limitations. The
survey ultimately served as an instrument to triangulate the data from the PLC coach, teacher,
and survey responses.
Document Analysis
The analysis of several documents were important to this study in order to triangulate the
data. The documents obtained were provided through professional learning experiences, internal
communication, and from the school website. The analysis included documents from the 2020
ACS WASC Self-Study, weekly eNews, the ACS 2027 Strategic Plan, and PLC coach
onboarding and training.
Data Collection
Qualitative research uses the collection and analysis of words as data and generally does
not use pre-existing categories for sorting the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Instead, it has a
focus that is naturally driven by the specific research questions (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). The
questions of the study were seen as tools for discovery as well as tools for clarity and focus. “In
the end, good qualitative questions are dynamic, multi-directional, and will capture the nuances
of the lives, experiences, and perspectives of others” (Agee, 2009, p. 446). Because qualitative
research is flexible, each interview is unique due “to the individual informant’s particular
experiences and abilities to communicate those experiences” (Elliott & Timulak, 2015, p. 150).
Because each interview is unique, an interpretive approach was used for data collection and
analysis. An interpretive approach “focuses on subjective experience, and small-scale
interactions, and understanding” (Hesse-Biber, 2017, p. 21). It assumes that meaning is socially
constructed via the interaction between humans and does not exist independent of the human

65

interpretive process (Hesse-Biber, 2017). Power is given to the respondent in the sense that they
become co-researchers and provide the words that become the data (Elliott & Timulak, 2015).
Interviewing is both a research methodology and a social relationship that reflects the
personalities of the interviewer and the participant (Seidman, 2013). The social forces of class,
ethnicity, race, and gender affect the relationships between the interviewer and participants
(Seidman, 2013, p. 97). Therefore, the interviewing relationship must be marked by respect and
good manners on the part of the interviewer. “The interviewer must also be constantly alert to
what is appropriate to the situation” (Seidman, 2013, p. 99). The issue of power in the
relationship, as the interviewer is the one who controls the direction of the interview and controls
the results must also be considered (Seidman, 2013). The interviewer is also the one who
benefits most from the interview. Striving for equity in the interview process was accomplished
by staying sensitive to the way the participant is experiencing the dynamic of the interview
relationship (Seidman, 2013).
When it comes to knowing how many people to interview and survey, Merriam and
Tisdell (2015) say it all “depends on the questions being asked, the data being gathered, the
analysis in progress, and the resources you have to support the study” (p. 101). What was
ultimately needed was an adequate number of participants to answer the research questions.
Elliott and Timulak (2015) recommend sampling until a point of saturation or redundancy is
reached. “Reaching a point of saturation, or redundancy, means that you begin hearing the same
responses to your interview questions” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 101). Reaching the point of
saturation was the goal of this study.
The PLC coaches received training in the spring of 2021 and began working with
teachers in August of 2021. The PLC teams needed to be working under the new PLC coaching

66

construct several months prior to being involved in interviews and surveys. Data collection
started at the beginning of February 2022 and concluded in March 2022.
Interviews
Once PLC coaches and teachers were identified, individual emails were sent requesting
personal interviews. Each participant was interviewed one time. The time and date that worked
best for the participant was a top priority. A quiet, neutral location was suggested as a meeting
point, but the final location was determined by the participant. The researcher conducted the
interview using scripted verbal instructions. Each interview took approximately 50 minutes.
Permission was requested to audio record and field notes were taken during the interview
process. The interview was transcribed, with the assistance of transcription Otter software and
then prepared for data analysis using ATLAS.ti.
Survey
The online survey was emailed to the 10 PLC coaches and 85 teachers who participated
in the prototyping of the PLC coaching model. The email included a link to the survey, and was
emailed in January 2022 and stayed open for 2 weeks. The survey took 15–20 minutes for
participants to complete. A gentle reminder was emailed when there was 3 days left to respond.
All questions were mandatory. After the closing date, the results were gathered, from Qualtrics,
for data analysis.
Data Analysis
Due to qualitative research relying on linguistic, rather than numerical, data, and
employing meaning-based rather than statistical forms of data analysis, an interpretive approach
was utilized for the data analysis phase (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). Because the data analysis
processes used words as measurement, flexibility was required as procedures were developed in

67

response to the ongoing analysis. Constant critical self-reflection and challenge skepticism with
regard to the analysis methods and the emerging results were also utilized (Elliott & Timulak,
2015). Every step of the analysis needed to be taken prudently with checking, auditing, and
double checking. The analysis was also systematic and organized, so the researcher could easily
locate information and trace results back to the context of the data (Elliott & Timulak, 2015).
The interpretive approach has eight steps that were utilized to analyze the data from the
individual interviews and the open response questions on the survey. “The first step of analysis is
data preparation” (Elliott & Timulak, 2015, p. 152). The interview recordings were transcribed
verbatim, using Otter, and the survey results were gathered. The second step taken was to pre-
analyze the data. This was done by reading the whole data set, so that the researcher could get
the entire picture (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). It was during this reading that insights and
understandings began to emerge and were written down as memos, using Atlas.ti (Elliott &
Timulak, 2015). Redundancies, repetitions, and unimportant digressions were omitted at this
point (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). The third step taken was to divide the data into distinctive
meaning units. The meaning units were the units with which the analysis would be completed
(Elliott & Timulak, 2015). A consecutive color code was assigned to each meaning unit. The
code localized the unit in the original protocol and facilitated auditing (Elliott & Timulak, 2015).
The fourth step, of analysis, entailed organizing the phenomenon into different processes or
phases, referred to as domains. This provided a conceptual framework for the data. However, the
conceptual framework needed to remain flexible so it could be tested and possibly restructured.
In the fifth step, the meaning units were coded or categorized within each of the domains. “The
word category refers to the aim of discerning regularities or similarities in the data” (Elliott &
Timulak, 2015, p. 154). Creation of categories was an interpretive process and served as a type

68

of dialogue with the data. In this step, the meaning units were constantly being compared to each
other and to the emerging categories, until all the data was sorted (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). The
sixth step of the analysis process was categorizing the categories. Similarities and dissimilarities
were examined from across the cases which led to a hierarchy of categories. “The key aspect of
the categorization is a delineation of the relationships between the categories” (Elliott &
Timulak, 2015, p. 155). The seventh step was to abstract the main findings from the category
structure. This was accomplished by looking for the simplest way to fully depict the
phenomenon in order to communicate the themes (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). The final step of the
analysis process was to validate the main findings by conducting an independent audit. This
included presenting the results of the analysis to the original informants or others like them in
order to obtain feedback and correction (Elliott & Timulak, 2015). A triangulation strategy was
also called upon when abstracting the main findings. Triangulation occurred between interviews,
surveys, and document analysis. “This strategy can yield a richer and more balanced picture of
the phenomenon, and also serves as across-validation method” (Elliott & Timulak, 2015, p. 151).
The closed survey data was compared with the main findings of the interviews, open survey
questions, and document analysis to identify trends and outliers.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the implementation process of the PLC
coaching model at ACS. The data helped assess how prepared and supported the PLC coaches
felt throughout the entire process as well as what infrastructure, skills, and motivation are
necessary for quality implementation. It also helped assess promising practice and limitations of
the PLC coaching model. A qualitative methodological approach was used in order to gain the
narrative perceptions of those involved in prototyping the model. Key stakeholders were

69

identified by detailing the 10 teams, at ACS, who participated. Purposeful sampling was called
upon in order to select participants from the 10 teams. The instrumentation used for this research
project were interviews, survey, and document analysis. These items were selected due to the
interest of “understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their
worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 6).
An interpretive approach was utilized for the data collection and data analysis phases (Elliott &
Timulak, 2015). An interpretive approach “focuses on subjective experience, and small-scale
interactions, and understanding” (Hesse-Biber, 2017, p. 21). The interpretive approach has eight
steps and was utilized to analyze the data from the individual interviews, and the open response
questions on the survey. A triangulation strategy was also utilized when abstracting the primary
findings.

70

Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this research project is to study how American Community School (ACS)
implemented a distributed leadership model, called the professional learning community (PLC)
coaching model, that empowered leaders with the time and authority to focus on both leading
and coaching the members of their teams. This study was designed to gather teachers’
perceptions of the promising practices and limitations related to the implementation of the PLC
coaching model. The QIF, by Wandersman, Katz et al. (2012), was utilized as an appraisal tool
to provide a series of coordinated steps which include assessment, collaboration and negotiation,
monitoring, and self-reflection, to ascertain whether the desired goals were achieved. The three
research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. How does an international school implement the PLC coaching model?
a. To what extent did PLC coach pilot teachers feel they received proper training
and on-going support?
b. What are pilot teachers’ perceptions of the infrastructure, skills, and
motivation needed for the model to be implemented with quality?
2. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the promising practices?
3. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the limitations?
This qualitative study used a semi-structured interview approach to collect data from
participants. Five PLC coaches and nine teachers, all from ACS, were interviewed. This study
also utilized a coach survey, a teacher survey, and documents from ACS to collect data. The
purpose of the surveys and document analysis was to triangulate the research findings and to
better understand the themes that emerged. The eight steps of the interpretive approach were

71

utilized to analyze the data from the individual interviews and the open response questions on the
survey.
This chapter shares the results for each research question based on the themes that
emerged from the interviews and coach and teacher surveys. The QIF’s four steps were
employed through the discussion sections as a resource for appraisal and future implementation.
Additional information gleaned from ACS documentation about the PLC coaching model has
been included where appropriate in order for readers to better understand the context and details
of the program.
Participants
This qualitative study used a semi-structured interview approach to collect data from
participants. Five PLC coaches and nine teachers, all from ACS, were interviewed. Two coaches
were from the high school, one coach was from the middle school, and two coaches were from
the elementary school. All coaches had volunteered to pilot the program and were coaching 40–
60% of their week. All five coaches were able to coach the entire 2021–2022 school year. Three
of the coaches were teaching in an additional language program. From the nine teacher
interviews, one was from the high school, two from the middle school, and six from the
elementary school. Teachers had received at least one coaching interaction, from their PLC
coach, in the 2021–2022 school year. Three teachers were from an additional language program.
Participants volunteered to participate in the interview process and each division was
represented. No additional recruitment was necessary for coach and teacher interviews, as the
sample was representative of the population.
This qualitative study also utilized a coach survey, a teacher survey, and document
analysis to collect data from participants. The purpose of the surveys were to triangulate the

72

research findings and to better understand the themes that emerged. Seven coaches and 33
teachers took the corresponding survey. The coach survey had a 70% participation rate and was
well represented from across the three divisions. The teacher survey had a 35% participation rate.
The department participants from the teacher survey are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Summary of Teacher Survey Participation
Grade level department Participated Contribution to results
Chinese immersion 4 12.20%
Chinese language 3 9.09%
Elementary music 4 12.12%
Spanish 4 12.12%
Grade 2 7 21.21%
Middle school math 4 12.12%
Middle school interdisciplinary 3 9.09%
High school learning support 0 0.00%
High school science 4 12.12%

73

Results: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was as follows: How does an international school implement the
PLC coaching model? Research Question 1 had two sub-questions:
1. To what extent did PLC coach pilot teachers feel they received proper training and
on-going support?
2. What are pilot teachers’ perceptions of the infrastructure, skills, and motivation
needed for the model to be implemented with quality?
The purpose of this research question was to increase understanding of the specific steps
and strategies ACS used to implement the PLC coaching model and to determine what ACS
teachers’ perceptions were regarding the training, on-going support, infrastructures, skills, and
motivation needed to implement the PLC coaching model with quality.
Three themes emerged from Research Question 1, which were all related to a feeling of
preparedness. These themes related to preparedness are as follows:
• ACS created a coaching construct which gave teachers the time and autonomy to
teach, lead, and coach the members of their team.
• ACS provided initial and ongoing training helped the coaches feel prepared.
• ACS provided initial and ongoing training have instilled a level of trust, in the coach,
from the teacher.
The Creation of the PLC Coaching Construct
An important component of the PLC coaching model was the creation and design of the
PLC coaching construct. The construct was an inaugural component to the “how” ACS went
about implementing the model. Other schools who might want to implement a similar model will

74

benefit by fully understanding the creation and design of the model. Document analysis was
utilized for this section.
PLC coach was a term coined by ACS in 2020 but not a new model in education. Berry et
al. (2013) and Margolis and Huggins (2012), used the term teacherpreneurs to describe the
hybrid teacher leader who taught part-time and directly supported fellow teachers the rest of the
time. Likewise, under the ACS PLC coaching model, experienced teacher leaders coached for
approximately half their schedule, supported teachers on their teams, facilitated peer-to-peer
learning opportunities, and strengthened PLC work focused on classroom teaching and learning
(ACS, 2021a). Therefore, the PLC coach took on the triune positions of teacher, leader, and
coach. The PLC coaching model was prototyped at ACS during the 2021–2022 school year by
10 PLC teams. The PLC coaching construct utilized distributed leadership and provided richer
and more actionable feedback on instruction. A coach from the survey noted how this type of
structure was reciprocal.
I believe in this model because it also helps the coach and makes them a better teacher. It
goes both ways. It’s also really exciting to get into teachers' classes and see what they are
doing. Teachers are doing amazing things.
Bierly et al. (2015) concur and believes that the power of distributed leadership is that it “sets
leaders up to provide hands-on, day-to-day coaching and real feedback that will help teachers
develop their skills” (p. 47). Nappi (2014) found that shared leadership has a greater impact on
student achievement than individual leadership. A coach in the middle school reflected on the
impact this construct is having on the students and recalled that the most rewarding part is that it
is significantly student centered. The teacher cited seeing an upgrade to teachers’ instructional
moves and it is giving the students a better learning experiences.

75

ACS stated the overall purpose of the model “is to offer teachers more opportunities for
professional coaching and to strengthen and accelerate the impact of the PLCs by bridging
teacher collaboration and learning to classroom practices” (2021a, para. 5). According to the
teacher survey, 15 teachers said the coaching they received connected learning to classroom
practices, eight said it somewhat made the connection, eight shared that it connected very little,
while two said it made no connection at all. During an interview, a teacher from the elementary
school said, “I think the goal of having a coach is ultimately to improve practice. Improving
practice will always go back to learning for the student.” Danielson (2006) and Hunzicher (2017)
also believe the primary purpose of teacher leadership is to support student learning and teacher
learning, which often takes place through job-embedded collaboration which is an important
aspect of the process.
ACS stated “the PLC leader is uniquely positioned to serve as PLC coach and facilitate
transformative learning opportunities because they have one foot firmly in the classroom, as a
classroom teacher, experiencing the same challenges as those they are leading” (2021b, para. 4).
This type of structure is also promoted by Odden and Picus (2020) who recommended schools
divide coaching responsibilities across several individual teachers who teach half-time and coach
the other half-time. A teacher from the survey commented on how they could trust their coach
because they personally knew them and had co-taught with them before.
ACS believes that great learning and academic excellence does not just happen by
chance. “Great learning and academic excellence are results of great teaching” (ACS, 2021a,
para. 2). ACS (2021a) shared that great teaching happens when teachers are willing to grow and
stretch themselves. Research has shown that the most effective way to grow is by practicing it,
receiving thoughtful and trusted feedback, and then having a chance to reflect and adjust on a

76

regular basis (ACS, 2021a; Bierly et al., 2015). A teacher form the middle school described the
feedback she received from her coach and how it impacted her teaching. “I did not receive target
feedback on my teaching, until this year. It was wonderful to get it this year. It was really a game
changer and I felt like I benefited greatly. I’m a big fan of it!” Implementing this type of
coaching model positively impacted student learning and organizational culture (Aspen, 2014:
Bierly et al., 2015; ACS, 2021a). Dr. Smith, Superintendent of ACS, reiterated this point when
he said, “Speaking from personal experience, I have seen this type of teacher leadership and
coaching model work very successfully at schools in the U.S. and internationally” (ACS, 2021a).
Dr. Smith spent 10 years as superintendent of the Star City School (SCS) district where he
implemented a similar model. Hunzicker (2017) notes that 25% of teachers in the United States
would like to participate in some kind of hybrid teacher leadership role like this and schools
would be wise to encourage and develop these aspiring teacher leaders. From the nine teacher
interviews, five of the teachers communicated a desire to move into a leadership role. This is
well over Hunzicher’s (2017) findings. If the statistics are generalizable, then ACS could very
well have well over 50% of their teachers who would like to assume a hybrid teacher leadership
role.
PLC Coach as Teacher
One of the positions the PLC coach held was the position of classroom teacher. To stay
firmly grounded in instructional practices and have the subject-matter expertise relevant to the
work their teams do, the PLC coach continued to teach for at least half of their schedule (ACS,
2021b). All seven coaches, on the survey, felt like they were most ready to take on the construct
of teacher with a 100% feeling of being prepared. The teacher survey showed that 20 teachers
thought their coach was very prepared to teach, while taking on the PLC coaching construct role,

77

eight felt their coach was moderately prepared, one thought their coach was somewhat prepared,
three felt like they were slightly prepared, while one felt their coach was not prepared to teach at
all. However, teaching was the highest percentage overall.
This type of distributed leadership strengthens collaboration and teacher teams. Empirical
research conducted by Walters et al. (2003) found that 33% of variation in school level
achievement was related to the teacher. Other studies have found that shared leadership has a
greater impact on student achievement than individual leadership (Nappi, 2014). They also
believe that teacher leaders engaged in implementing practices in their own classrooms are
“uniquely positioned to provide formative, job-embedded feedback to their peers” (ACS, 2021b,
para. 4). Joyce and Showers (1983) agree and believe most coaching should be performed by
teams of teachers working together due to their proximity, close relationships, and an excellent
position to carry out the coaching functions. ACS further believes that teacher leaders are not the
only experts on the team but instead use their expertise to empower individuals and the collective
to learn and grow (ACS, 2021b). A teacher, from the teacher survey, said, “I appreciate getting
feedback from an expert in my field. It makes it more meaningful.” However, not all teachers felt
like the coach was an expert. A teacher who was interviewed said, “the person who was hired to
coach our team had the least amount of experience and would not be considered an expert.”
Another teacher who was interviewed from the elementary school also said, “Our coach was not
an expert and that really surprised me.” However, Hunzicker sums up Riveros et al. (2013)
nicely when he says, “Deep knowledge of teaching, learning, and students gives teachers
credibility among their peers, which expands their ability to influence others” (2017, p. 3).
Moving forward ACS plans to keep teams at a reasonable size as they believe teacher leaders are
more able to give frequent and actionable feedback. The goal is to have one PLC coach work

78

with a team of 6-10 teachers. This ratio is consistent with the 288 elementary students to one
coach and 315 secondary students to one coach that is advised by Odden and Picus (2020). Some
coaches questioned the number of teachers they coached during the pilot year, but know the ratio
will improve once the model is implemented school wide. Some coaches worked with 18–21
teachers during the prototyping of the model.
By having the PLC coach continue teaching part time in the classroom they recognized
that taking risks and making mistakes can be a way to learn. It reinforced that asking for help
was necessary, that integration and refinement of attitudes and skills is a lifelong process, and
that coaches too can learn from other teachers (Hunzicker, 2017). A coach from the middle
school shared how he had to be vulnerable in his new role:
At first it felt uncomfortable, but then I saw how flexible the model was and then I saw I
had room to make mistakes. I also learned that I can’t compare myself to other coaches. I
have to do what makes me comfortable and is best for my team.
PLC Coach as Leader
Another position the PLC coach held was the position of PLC leader. Another name for
this position, at ACS, is the PLCC which stands for the professional learning community chair.
The PLCC ultimately leads their grade level or department. The coach survey showed that three
coaches felt very prepared to lead their team, while four felt moderately prepared. The teacher
survey showed that 13 teachers thought their coach was very prepared to lead, while taking on
the PLC coaching construct role, 13 felt their coach was moderately prepared, four thought their
coach was somewhat prepared, while three felt their coach was slightly prepared. ACS needs
their PLCCs to be highly motivated to collaborate with and support their colleagues to improve
student learning. A coach from the middle school shared, “I felt a lot more fulfilled this year as a

79

leader. I was able to add a lot more value to the team in regards to their learning.” Another
teacher from the high school shared that he felt like he had more release time this year to attend
to leadership responsibilities, but had to be careful as sometimes the line between coaching and
leading can become blurred. Leading in this capacity allowed the PLC coaches to support both
individual and collective growth in ways that better supported student learning and ACS’s
strategic direction (ACS, 2021d).
Schools have only had formal teacher leadership positions in the past few decades and
unfortunately, Neumerski (2012) states there is little consensus around what constitutes teacher
leadership. Danielson (2007) described teacher leaders as “educators who go beyond the
technical requirements of their jobs and contribute to the general well-being of the institutions of
which they are a part” (30–31). ACS believes that this going beyond has the ability fostered trust
within the PLCC’s team by building a collaborative culture of collective responsibility which is
focused on the results of every student learning at high levels (ACS, 2021a). A teacher from the
middle school described the going beyond her coach demonstrated:
To build trust my coach came in at the beginning of the year, for 2–3 weeks, and just sat
in my room to get to know the kids. She would leave sticky notes on my desk that said
what she liked about my interaction with my students or a specific instructional strategy I
used. She would also leave questions asking me to tell her more about something. She
would then walk out of my room without having to have a big conversation. She just
wanted to show up and have a presence in my room. It built a relationship that eventually
led to trust.

80

It was found that this type of interaction happened frequently during the PLC coaching prototype
when PLCC led their PLCs in the effort to collaborate frequently to answer the four PLC
questions. The four PLC questions, according to Eaker et al. (2002), are as follows:
1. What do we expect students to learn?
2. How do we know if they are learning it?
3. What do we do if they aren’t learning it?
4. What do we do if they already have learnt it? (p. 4)
A coach interviewed from the elementary school shared how they used their PLC time to
enhance coaching results:
I was able to leverage the 10 observations I conducted to create learning that would be
valuable for the PLC team. Then I led my team through the professional development
(PD). Following I provided individual coaching for each teacher. This way I am not
asking teachers to do something they have not learned. I’m asking them to use the
training they received to think about the coaching I am providing.
Most PLCC utilized their distributed leadership position to “help their PLC team learn together
by regularly reflecting on and learning about their individual and collective practices” (ACS,
2021b, para. 5). Moving forward the PLC coach as leader will ensure the “PLC is the primary
vehicle for ACS to deliver on their strategic areas of focus, especially around the desired student
learning outcomes, social emotional learning, and alignment of curriculum and practices” (ACS,
2021b, para. 5). The PLC coach, as leader, utilized the ACS Leadership Framework. The leader
qualities and qualifications can be found in Table 3.

81

Table 3
Leadership Framework
Strategic focus
Communicates a compelling view of the future that inspires others.
Spends time appropriately on the most important strategic priorities.
Helps the organization achieve its goals by questioning existing assumptions and providing
creative solutions.
Appropriately balances long and short-term planning and results.
Appropriately balances strategic and operational priorities and issues.
Stays current on educational trends and focuses on professional development.
Gathers and considers input and uses evidence to inform strategic decisions and program
development.
Effectively communicates change management initiatives.
Results/operational focus
Meets commitments and achieves goals; does what they say they will do.
Diagnoses and solves complex problems effectively and efficiently.
Makes timely decisions, even without full information.
Uses a data-driven approach to analyze problems and make decisions.
Monitors results of department or division (e.g., instruction and student learning, budget).
Differentiates professional learning to meet individual or small group needs.
When necessary, effectively delivers professional development.
Uses organizational resources (staff time, budget, materials, etc) efficiently and productively.
Team leadership and culture
Builds trust with all team members.
Effectively attracts, develops, and maintains a high-performing, action-oriented team.
Provides effective coaching and balanced feedback to team members.
Creates a healthy work climate for the team that stimulates new ideas and innovative thinking.
Addresses poor performance in a timely and appropriate way.
Delegates appropriately and empowers team effectively.
Models learning and individual professional development.

82

Effectively leads meetings.
Relationship management
Builds strong collaborative relationships and partnerships across the organization.
Actively promotes and builds positive parent engagement and positively represents ACS in
the community.
Brings a student-first orientation and positive approach to all interactions.
Is well respected and influential across the organization.
Actively promotes the sharing of information to ensure best practices.
Respects and values all individuals for their insights and contributions, regardless of
background, level, or experience.
Manages conflict tactfully, professionally and appropriately.
Provides and accepts constructive feedback from colleagues.
Personal leadership
Plans for the future with a sense of optimism and urgency, even when faced with challenges
or setbacks.
Demonstrates strong professional strengths, including a commitment to excellence and high
integrity.
Is a quick learner; adjusts thinking and builds on new perspectives and knowledge quickly.
Openly acknowledges mistakes.
Remains focused and calm under pressure.
Is self-aware; understands strengths and gaps and focuses on self-development and personal
growth.
Is a role model and visible leader of the desired ACS culture and values.

Note. Adapted from Draft leadership appraisal form, by American Community School, 2021f.

Hunzicker (2017) reported that teacher leaders feel empowered, more confident, and
professionally satisfied when they work as a teacher leader. Some of this satisfaction may come
from leading change and knowing they are improving their school. A coach interviewed from the

83

high school reflected on the professional satisfaction that came from leading in this capacity, “I
feel like I’m making a positive impact. Leading PLCs in this direction has created a structural
change that is going back into coaching. It’s messy, but I know I’m making a difference.”
Research has also found that leading in this capacity allows teacher leaders “to improve their
practice, learn more about content and pedagogy, and grow professionally” (Hunzicker, 2017, p.
4).
PLC Coach as Coach
The final position the PLC coach held was the position of coach. The coach facilitated
feedback and learning among team members including peer-to-peer, coach-team, and/or group
settings. ACS believes that “everyone, including top-performing professionals, benefits from
regular, actionable feedback to further improve and develop their professional practice” (2021b,
para. 5). The PLC coach, in their coaching capacity, helped teachers to further strengthen and
develop their classroom practices. The coach survey showed that one coach felt very prepared to
coach their team, five felt somewhat prepared, while one felt slightly prepared. The teacher
survey showed that 15 teachers thought their coach was very prepared to coach, while taking on
the PLC coaching construct role, 10 felt their coach was moderately prepared, one thought their
coach was somewhat prepared, five felt their coach was slightly prepared, while two felt their
coach was not prepared at all.
The PLC coach, when acting as coach, helped provide a much-needed structure that
shifted instructional focus from PLC Questions 1 and 2 to PLC Questions 3 and 4. This shift in
focus created more personalized learning opportunities which positively impacted student
learning, including students who are at either end of the achievement spectrum (ACS, 2021d).
The PLC coaching prototype allowed teachers to see that this type of on-going feedback and

84

communication about instructional practice will ensure a highly aligned and coherent program
(ACS, 2021b). Ultimately, ACS created a coaching construct which gave teachers the time and
autonomy to teach, lead, and coach the members of their team.
Preparation: Training and Support
The PLC coaches received training and support beginning Spring of 2021 continuing
throughout the 2021–2022 school year. ACS used both internal and external expertise to help
coaches further grow their capacity to facilitate learning on their teams (ACS, 2021d). Albers
and Pattuwage (2017) reiterated “training and ongoing support are the most critical
implementation strategies reported on in educational studies” (p. 17). Knight (2009) believes PD
is important because coaches need to understand the interventions they are sharing and they need
to understand how to actively engage in the coaching process. In Spring 2021, coaches were
specifically trained on the PLC coaching construct, the art of time management, high functioning
teams, and an overview of cognitive coaching. Coaches continued to receive training throughout
the 2021–2022 school year on the PLC coaching construct, the art of time management, and high
functioning teams. They were also introduced to different coaching models, the impact cycle, as
presented by Jim Knight, radical candor, by Kim Scott, and received additional outside training
on cognitive coaching in the spring of 2022. In addition, coaches were given the opportunity to
be mentored and coached monthly by a professional coach outside of the organization.
The PLC coach cohort tasked with prototyping the model met biweekly with ACS’s
deputy superintendent to calibrate, troubleshoot, and develop coaching and leadership skills.
Coaches also met one on one with the deputy superintendent. An elementary coach who was
interviewed reflected on their meetings. “We had check-in sessions once a quarter and they have
been really helpful. She asked me questions and I asked her questions. She offered suggestions

85

and guided me through this implementation process. It was really good!” This collaborative
process assisted the refinement of the PLC coaching construct to be in the training of future
coaches. The refined PLC coaching construct now includes the proficiencies identified in Table
4.

Table 4
PLC Coach Construct
Teach Coach Lead
Utilize high quality
culturally-responsive
instructional practices in
the classroom.
Identify student learning and
social-emotional needs as
well as professional growth
needs.
Facilitate effective team
interactions, including
meetings, coaching
debriefs, and analysis of
data.
Model reflective practice by
requesting, receiving, and
acting on feedback to grow
as a professional.
Observe instruction, analyze
student work, and provide
feedback to coachee.

Coordinate team professional
learning based on needs
emerging from coaching
experiences and current
research.
Demonstrate deep
understanding of content
area standards and
competencies, assessment
practices, and
developmental needs of
students.
Define action(s) to be taken,
implement differentiated
learning approaches, and
reflect on changes being
made.

Support alignment and
connection to the SAS
strategic direction and
priorities.

Note. Adapted from PLC Coach Onboarding and Support Plan, by American Community
School, 2022a.

The interviews and coach survey showed that coaches felt well supported throughout the
prototype by their divisional administration. Most coaches met monthly with their principal or
deputy principal to discuss coaching schedules and personal goals. This was very beneficial

86

because according to Lyon (n.d.), principals are the most relevant leaders for implementation
efforts and long-term dedication and success. Administration was readily available to help
coaches troubleshoot problems and worked as a thought partner. However, feedback suggested
support from divisional administration was not consistent across the divisions and some coaches,
particularly from high school learning support, Chinese world language, Chinese immersion, and
Spanish language programs, felt their command structures were cumbersome and too ambiguous.
This resulted in an abundance of meetings and an unclear support structure. For example, two
coaches in the elementary school shared that one of their administrators changed halfway
through the year and they felt like they were training their new supervisor on the PLC coaching
construct.
The training and support PLC coaches received prior to, and during, the prototyping of
the model made them feel prepared. A coach from the elementary said, “The training we
received last spring and through all this year was really good. I am excited to have more training
coming up soon on cognitive coaching.” ACS (2022a) emphasized the need for teacher leaders to
be supported with time, training, resources, and coaching. All of the PLC coaches selected to
prototype the model were currently full time teachers and divisional or subject leaders. The
survey reflected their confidence and feeling of being prepared in these two areas. However,
coaching was a new construct for the majority of the coaches and the one they were feeling the
least prepared to engage. Arguilar (2013) concurs that coaches being more than likely masters of
content and pedagogy in the classroom but have little training or knowledge of how to work with
adults. However, this did not detract from a feeling of success in the prototyping of the model.
When coaches were asked, on the survey, to what extent was the PLC coaching prototype
implemented effectively, two coaches said to a great extent while five said somewhat. One of the

87

coaches from the high school summed it up nicely, “I have felt various degrees of success with
my coaching, but our meetings with our high school administration and our deputy
superintendent have been supportive and encouraging.”
Building Trust Through Training
The initial and ongoing training PLC coaches received instilled a level of trust from the
teacher toward their PLC coach. The correlation between the two is demonstrated in the teacher
survey results. When it came to levels of trust, 71% of the teachers that responded to the survey
said they trusted their PLC coach and 75% believed their PLC coach was prepared to coach.
Teachers noted their coaches knowledge of the PLC coaching construct and linked it to initial
and ongoing training. However, the greatest amount of trust came from the teachers’ confidence
in their coach’s ability to teach. This is demonstrated in the teacher survey in which 85% of the
responding teachers trusted their coach’s ability to teach. This corresponds to Furtado and
Anderson’s (2013) findings that teachers with significant teaching experience, who demonstrate
high levels of instructional expertise, collaboration, and reflection are more respected and trusted
by their peers. ACS (2022a) concurs that because teacher leaders are also teaching, there is an
increase in investment and trust because they are viewed as credible experts who are going
through the same challenges as those being coached. A significant number of teachers also
commented on the coaches connection to the curriculum and current experience teaching in the
classroom. ACS noted the importance of the PLC coach continuing to teach for at least half of
their schedule in order to stay firmly grounded in instructional practices and have the subject-
matter expertise relevant to the work their teams do (ACS, 2021b). This ability to stay firmly
grounded in the classroom and training received has led to a deeper trust of the PLC coach.

88

Hunzicker (2017) concurred and shared that knowledge of pedagogical practices gives teachers
credibility among their peers, which expands their ability to influence others.
Discussion: Research Question 1
Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) defines quality implementation as “putting an
innovation into practice in a way that meets the necessary standards to achieve the innovation’s
desired outcomes” (p. 482). According to ACS (2021b) the desired outcomes for implementing
the PLC coaching model are as follows:
1. Create opportunities that allow ACS to test and learn from teacher leadership and
feedback approaches in context.
2. Increase frequency and usefulness of feedback and learning opportunities for teachers
and strengthen the PLCs.
3. Identify PLC coaches who possess a positive disposition, a growth mindset, high
emotional intelligence, strong relationships with peers, and strong ability to lead a
team.
4. Identify support systems necessary to train identified PLC coaches to facilitate high-
quality learning with their teams, increase quality of team-based learning, and deliver
high-quality coaching and feedback.
5. Develop recommendations regarding which approaches may be best suited to
implement to scale at ACS in the future.
It is critical to measure the success of implementation initiatives in order to ensure the
initiative continues to deliver its intended effect (Cutbush et al., 2017; Durlak & DuPre, 2008;
Lyon, n.d.; Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). So, in the end, the model can be fully
adopted into institutionalization and positioned for scale, by establishing standards and aligning

89

support structures across the entire system (Bierly et al., 2015). To highlight the extent to which
ACS implemented the PLC coaching model with fidelity, the discussion for Research Question 1
is evaluated through the use of the QIF. ACS’s desired Outcome 1, Outcome 3, and Outcome 4
are in line with the themes that emerged from Research Question 1 and closely follow Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the QIF.
Phase 1 of QIF: Self-Assessment, Adaption, and Capacity Building
The first phase of the QIF focuses on the fit between the innovation and the institution.
The first step of Phase 1 is to employ a series of self-assessment strategies to ensure a good fit.
This includes a needs and resources assessment, a fit assessment, and a capacity/readiness
assessment (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). ACS did not follow a template for the
assessments, but rather engaged in non-official assessments through surveys, leadership
meetings, and strategic planning. The new superintendent of ACS, Dr. Smith, conducted a
listening tour in 2019. The listening tour consisted of 68 small group conversations with faculty
and staff to better understand teacher and staff perception of the school as well as to gather data
on what was most important moving forward (ACS, 2021a). The results of the tour impacted the
2027 Strategic Plan and confirmed the need to implement a teacher leadership model that would
allow for teachers to receive feedback on their teaching practices. ACS conducted a non-official
needs and resource assessment, and concluded that the model was needed and the school
possessed all the resources to accomplish the desired outcomes. As part of the fit assessment and
capacity/readiness assessment, ACS engaged the leadership cohort in conversations to gather
feedback on the structure, benefit, and readiness of prototyping the model. They confirmed the
model matched the mission, vision, and strategy for growth. The self-assessments allowed ACS
to test and learn from teacher leadership and feedback approaches in their context.

90

Discussions about adaptation is the second step of Phase 1. It was during this phase the
implementation was modified and positioned for scale. Aguilar (2019) and Aspen (2014) both
state that after determining a vision and definition of coaching and naming the model, the
outcomes of a coaching program must be determined. To accomplish this, ACS established
standards, revised the rational which included the desired outcomes, refined the coaching
construct, selected administration from the Office of Learning to document and monitor the
implementation, and aligned support structures across the divisions (Bierly et al., 2015; Earl et
al., 2016; Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). They were shared with leaders during a
November 2020 leadership meeting (ACS, 2021c) and soon after communicated to all staff.
These decisions were agreed upon by all parties involved and done prior to stakeholder buy-in as
suggested by Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012). The carefully crafted design of the
coaching construct and rationale ultimately gave teachers the time and autonomy to teach, lead,
and coach the members of their team.
The third and final step of Phase 1 is to engage the institution in capacity building.
Capacity building includes the recruitment of innovation champions and obtaining explicit buy-
in from leadership, front-line staff who will deliver the innovation, and from the local
community (Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). Concerns, questions, and resistance to the
innovation need to be dealt with and possible barriers need to be lessened or removed. Training
is another critical component of capacity-building and can help alleviate concern, questions, and
resistance.
During the capacity-building stage innovation champions need to be identified and
recruited. ACS recruited trusted individuals who would inspire and lead others to implement the
PLC coaching model. The idea of trust was mentioned often and was of great importance to the

91

teachers. Furtado and Anderson’s (2013) found that teachers with significant teaching
experience, who demonstrate high levels of instructional expertise, collaboration, and reflection
are more respected and trusted by their peers. Costa and Garmston (2015) believe the best way to
build trust between the coach and teacher is by maintaining a non-judgmental stance.
Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) also expressed the need for “individuals
selected to have expertise related to the innovation, its use, implementation science, and process
evaluation so they can support the implementation effort effectively” (p. 470). However, Meyers,
Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) continued to share that they do not have to have initial
knowledge or expertise because they can build their capacity through training and on-going
support. The majority of the individuals selected to prototype the PLC coaching model were not
expert coaches but gained their knowledge through training and on-going support. Consequently,
this negatively impacted teachers’ perception of the coaches’ capabilities. This perception was
compounded by a lack of capacity-building with the teachers who would be coached. It was
determined that teachers would appreciate more information on the qualification criteria and the
protocol used to select coaches. Teachers would also like to select their coaches. It was
concluded, through the data, that teachers would trust their coaches more if they had a say in the
selection process. It was also found that teachers would prefer the hiring process be more
transparent. Roles of existing staff were realigned to ensure that adequate person-power was put
toward implementation. PLC coaches were given approximately 40–60% release time,
depending on the division, to support their team members with the remaining time spent
teaching. Release time was covered by permanent hires, not substitute teachers.
Buy-in from leadership, front-line staff, and from the local community was concluded to
play a significant role in the overall quality of the implementation (Lyon, n.d.; Meyers,

92

Wandersman, Katz, et al., 2012). Leadership and PLC coaches got onboard quickly, with the
PLC coaching model, due in part to the training and support they received from the program
developers (Turnbull, 2002). PLC coaches were also supportive of the model due in large to the
role they played implementing the model. They had an increase in distributed leadership
responsibility and were given control over classroom implementation. Buy-in from school
leadership and teachers can produce the long-term dedication that is needed to successfully
implement an initiative (Lyon, n.d.; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018.). The teachers surveyed were
split down the middle when it came to program buy-in. The teachers did not have a lot of
decision making power and didn’t receive training. Several teachers interviewed said they did
not volunteer to prototyping the model but due to their PLC leader being selected to coach, they
were told they would participate. Participation varied among the teachers. The larger ACS
community was informed of the PLC coaching model through ACS’s weekly online news
platform. Communication about the model was first shared on January 15, 2021, which was 7
months prior to the prototype's launch. As part of buy-in concerns, questions, and resistance to
the innovation need to be dealt with and possible barriers need to be lessened or removed
(Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. 2012). To address this ACS included a concerns and question
section derived by the Leadership Cohort. They answered as many of the questions as they could
in the 2020 PLC Coach Prototype document. Questions that were not answered in the document
were noted at the bottom and answered later throughout the implementation process. To address
community questions and concerns, ACS administration continued to share information about
the model in the weekly online news and held several parent coffees. These coffees were used to
inform parents of the research and benefit of implementing this type of model.

93

In order to support new structures, proper training is another critical component of Phase
1. Durlak and DuPre (2008) found that over 20 studies agreed that proper training and technical
assistance were the greatest prevention delivery system of implementation failure. PLC coach
training and support, in the Spring of 2021, used both internal and external expertise to build
skill sets related to working with adult learners, giving feedback, and providing coaching.
Training for PLC coaches included the why, what, when, where, and how of the PLC coaching
model. It also covered the theory, philosophy, and values of the model. As well as the skill-based
competencies needed for practitioners to achieve self-efficacy, proficiency, and correct
application. Initial and ongoing training helped the coaches feel prepared and instilled a level of
trust, in the coach, from the teacher. While coaches felt they had received proper training prior to
and throughout the prototyping of the model, and teachers felt coaches had received proper
training, teachers felt they were not trained on the theory, philosophy, and values of the model.
Teachers also expressed a desire to be trained in the art of receiving feedback.
Phase 2 of QIF: Structural Features for Implementation
The second phase of implementation primarily focuses on the structures that should be
developed to oversee the process (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). This includes creating
implementation teams and having a clear plan for implementing the innovation (Meyers,
Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). ACS established key leadership roles, identified how those roles
would be deployed to support teams, and what processes the system would need to support the
new structure (Bierly et al., 2015, p. 51). They published the rationale for the process, titled PLC
Coach Prototype, and shared it with the staff prior to the selection process (ACS, 2021c).
The implementation teams were selected through a volunteer application process that was
presented on the November 13, 2020 in-service day. PLC teams filled out a survey together

94

where they were able to share their interest in prototyping the PLC coaching model the following
year. The application date closed on November 20, the selection process began on November 23,
and on December 7, PLC coaches and teams were selected and announced. ACS selected trusted
teacher leaders, to lead the change, who were committed and who felt ownership for the changes
(Earl et al., 2016). PLC coach selection was informed by the following criteria:
• track record of instructional excellence
• elevated emotional intelligence
• ability to develop high-trust relationships
• ability to coach, be coached, and act on feedback
• experience in leading teams
• track record of leading/facilitating adult learning (ACS, 2021c, p. 5)
ACS was also purposeful in selecting teaching teams from across the divisions. Additional
selection was informed by the following criteria:
• degree of trust and teamwork within the team
• willingness of team members to participate in prototype
• cross school representation
• different types of teams (e.g., grade level, specialist, Grade 6 to Grade 12)
• demonstrated record of innovation and leadership by the PLC team and team leader
• strength of application (ACS, 2021c, p. 5)
A clear plan for implementing the innovation was also shared in the PLC Coach
Prototype document. Teams were aware of the expectations and the desired outcomes were
clearly communicated. Prototype parameters were set and included:

95

• Both the PLC coach and the team members are committed to participating (coalition
of the willing);
• There should be a ratio of approximately one PLC coach to 6-10 team members;
• PLC coaches will be given approximately 40–60% release time (depending on
division schedule) to support their team members with the remaining time spent
teaching. The release time will be covered by permanent hires (not substitutes);
• Initial prototype participants would be making a 1 year commitment to the program.
Current thinking is that we would use our existing PLC leader structure of 3 year
appointments for our future program but this approach will be reviewed through the
prototype process;
• A PLC coach will receive a $5000 stipend on top of current leadership stipend, plus
an additional $2500 for Spring 2021 and compensation for one extra week in July
2021;
• We will provide training and support to PLC coaches using both internal and external
expertise to help them further grow their capacity to facilitate learning on their
teams (beginning in Spring 2021);
• Regular meetings with the respective division leadership teams to review how we are
doing on implementing key academic priorities and supporting teachers;
• For 2021–2022, this opportunity will be provided to 5-10 PLC coaches and their
teams in the initial year;
• For 2021–2022, the existing PGE process will remain in effect (administrator
responsibility); and

96

• For 2021–2022, existing coaches will continue in their current roles + assist in
providing direct coaching to the identified PLC coaches on their coaching
practices. (ACS, 2021c, 2–3)
Results: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive
are the promising practices? The purpose of this research question was to increase understanding
of the schedule, impactful strategies, and tools ACS utilized to implement the PLC coaching
model, to keep them both alive and growing. Three themes emerged from the Research Question
2, which were related to flexibility and feedback:
• flexibility of the PLC coaching model promoted reflective practices
• flexibility in goal setting aligned to PLC work
• collaborative feedback that fostered relationships and impacted instruction
Flexibility of the PLC Coaching Model That Promoted Reflective Practices
The PLC coaching model was flexible in the way it allowed coaches to make and learn
from their mistakes, allowed for flexibility in the schedule, and the way it allowed the coaches to
call upon different coaching models throughout the coaching cycle. This type of flexibility
created a reflective environment. Research conducted by Akbari (2007) and Göker (2020) shows
that reflective practice can result in an increase in job satisfaction, an increase in self-efficacy,
and an improvement in interpersonal relationships with colleagues and students. One of the
teachers explained, “ACS is being flexible in its expectation of what the coaching model should
look like.” He further explained, “The coaches have the freedom to approach their new roles in
the manner they believe will best suit their skills and the needs of their teams.”

97

To Make Mistakes
Coach interviews revealed an appreciation for a model and environment that allowed for
experimentation and mistake making. According to Garmston et al. (1993) using this type of
frame promotes risk taking, open-mindedness, and a commitment to continuous learning. It
deepens reflective skills, fosters collegiality, and develops cognitive autonomy. Taking on this
type of prototype created an environment of and allowed for honest conversations about personal
practice. During an interview, a coach from the middle school described what this felt like, “It
felt uncomfortable, but it was also really flexible in the sense that I was allowed to make all the
mistakes.” There was an acknowledgement that implementation would not be perfect and that
coaches were learning along the way. A coach from the high school shared the following in his
reflection, “It is still a pilot year and structures are still flexible and changing. It is very much a
kind of a situation where we are trying different things to see what sticks and trying different
things to see what works.” This created somewhat of an environment focused on reflection
which allowed coaches to make and learn from their mistakes.
Schedule
Flexibility of the schedule provided release time for the coaches to coach and observe the
members of their PLC. This increased the frequency of interactions with the coach and provided
more opportunities for feedback, reflection, and growth. Similarly, findings from the SCS
literature review showed teams benefited when institutions were flexible in the implementation
process (SCS, 2018b). At SCS, flexibility also came in the form of time allowed to implement
and flexibility in the team leads work schedule (SCS, 2018b). Not only did it allow for release
time to observe and coach, but it allowed for release time to attend to leadership responsibilities.
ACS (2022a) believes that teacher leaders are most impactful when they are empowered to lead

98

teams, not just work with individuals or coordinate team activities. Curtis explains that the
amount of release time teachers have determines how effective they are (2013). He goes on to
explain that most schools do not address the issue of time and instead leadership responsibilities
have been piled on top of full-time teaching loads. This ultimately leads to burn-out (Curtis,
2013). ACS (2022a) believes that day-to-day coaching and support is the most effective way to
foster excellent teaching and learning. This directly impacted the work of the PLC. Therefore
release time is essential. More is discussed on the impact of the PLC in the Flexibility in Goal
Setting Aligned to PLC Work section below. Several coaches felt guilty for being out of the
classroom while some teachers wondered what the coach was doing with the time spent out of
the classroom. This demonstrated a need for more transparency regarding the coach’s schedule.
This is discussed in Research Question 3.
Another opportunity for flexibility, in the schedule, came with the option of being
coached or not and the frequency of being coached. Aguilar (2019) found that coaching
programs are most successful when organizations encourage and commend those who seek out
opportunities to grow and don’t coerce or mandate their employees to participate. An elementary
teacher describes the flexibility it afforded in a conversation about prototyping the model:
So this kind of building the model as it is being implemented, and gaining feedback, I
think it was a good way. And there was not the pressure of you having to meet with all of
your teachers and you must have this many cycles done by this date. None of that was
mandatory as it was a very soft start.
When a teacher has a choice regarding participation, buy-in is enhanced. The literature makes a
clear connection between buy-in and the ability to reflect at deeper levels (Aguilar, 2019; Lyon,
n.d.).

99

Use of Different Coaching Models
ACS employed a variety of coaching models and strategies rather than selecting a single
approach. Some of the coaching models teachers drew upon were as follows:
• blended coaching
• challenge coaching
• co-active coaching
• cognitive coaching
• collegial coaching
• content-focused coaching
• differentiated coaching
• evocative coaching
• GROW coaching
• instructional coaching
• metacognitive coaching
• observation-feedback coaching
• peer coaching
• student-centered coaching
• team coaching
• technical coaching
• transformative coaching
ACS (2022b) believes the very best coaches are those who are able to adjust their approach to
coaching to meet the needs of the situation, the teacher, or the intended outcome. Due to this
open approach, coaches revealed that they enjoyed a sense of autonomy when it came to meeting

97

the needs of their team. A coach from the high school explained that they were given the
freedom to find their way and appreciated that someone was not saying it had to look a curtain
way. This allowed them to do different things, with different people, in order to meet their needs.
They stated they didn’t want to be put into a box where coaching had to look a certain way and
feel the process was set in stone.
Aspen (2014) warned that even in models implemented loosely, systems should provide
concrete models and options so leaders don’t default to traditional models and extinguish the
transformative impact. There was an acknowledgement that the ACS needs to train coaches on
more of these models in order to know which one to use at which time. A teacher from the high
school explained:
This is ongoing work and there have been needs around balancing different models of
coaching and how those different models of coaching might frame the work of the coach
and teacher. We have to figure out which pieces of each model we can bring into our
ACS model.
Flexibility in Goal Setting Aligned to PLC Work
ACS (2022A) stressed there is not a one size fits all approach. They rather emphasized
the need to have tight parameters that can be differentiated for the context. Therefore, teachers
worked directly with a coach to set goals and work to meet them. The PD becomes more
personalized since teachers are given a voice in their professional learning and development
(Hawk, 2020). Teachers appreciated having this choice when it came to setting personal goals at
the beginning of the coaching cycles, how they wanted to meet those goals, and in making
choices about how long the cycle will last. Personal goals ranged from high impact instructional
practices, evaluation of teacher talk time through the use of equity maps, and making clear

98

connections to the school’s strategic plan and the existing institutional commitments. A coach
from the elementary school described giving teachers the choice, so they can decide whether
they want to plan with her or having her observe them. She wanted it to be based on the teachers’
individual needs and she also allowed them to pick a 3–5-day window that works for them and
asked them when, where, and how they want to reflect.
A teacher from the elementary school recalled how having choice helped her reflect,
“What I really, really enjoyed was having the chance to choose my goal. That was huge for me
and helped me reflect because it was personal.” Another teacher from the middle school shared
how personalized goals and feedback helped her make relevant changes:
The coaching conversation was very personal. It helped me identify goals, plan, and
reflect. The feedback was also personalized and made it relevant. When you have a
choice it makes you own your own learning and make the necessary changes.
The combination of the PLC coach with the department chair role allowed coaches to see
patterns and trends in their department and then work with their team to consider structural
changes in the PLC to help teachers better serve their students. As noted by many coaches and
teachers, this has tied PLC and department goals to coaching goals. This autonomy afforded to
the coach is then advanced to the teachers, which leads to structural change that the majority was
excited about. A coach in the elementary recalls conducting walkthroughs of different
classrooms and the benefit, “I was able to see trends or common areas the whole team needed to
work on. Then I was able to bring it back as a topic at one of our PLC meetings.” A coach from
the high school reflected on teacher input impacting PLC work by allowing teachers to make
suggestions and then exploring the feature protocol to create a new structure for implementation.
The coach felt this was a good example of how it had accelerated and strengthened their PLC

99

work. Overall, the findings suggested that choice is a powerful motivating factor at ACS and is
highly valued by the teachers and coaches. Likewise, SCS found that personal choice promoted
reflective practices, increased buy-in, and advanced structural change (SCS, 2018b).
Collaborative Feedback That Built Relationships and Impacted Instruction
According to Bierly et al. (2015), “the most effective coaching involved not only one-to-
one observation and feedback, but also time spent working together, collaborating to solve
everyday problems” (p. 40). Likewise, coaches and teachers at ACS shared that this same type of
day-to-day collaboration solved everyday problems, but also helped foster trusting relationships
and led to high-quality instruction. Aguilar (2013) and Hawk (2020) also found that instructional
practices changed when coaches created an opportunity for teachers to reflect deeply, have
powerful conversations, and take risks.
NORC’s (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018) national surveys consistently found strong
correlations between routine collaboration, high levels of teacher trust, and the quick spread of
best practices. “Such correlations represent the self-reinforcing ‘virtuous cycle’ of collective
capacity development” (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018, p. 10). This study's data shows a relationship
between the collaboration and feedback and the relationship between the coach and teacher.
Teacher interview responses that included trust were in tandem with those who highlighted
collaboration. Knight (2009) believes trust is an essential component of any coaching
relationship and because teaching is such a personal activity, coaches need to win teachers’ trust.
Coaches can do this by being careful with their comments and suggestions as not to run the risk
of damaging relationships or offending teachers. One teacher described how having a trusted
relationship, built on collaboration made them feel:

100

I trust my PLC coach and I really looked forward to our meetings, because I was allowed
to choose a topic of my own interest. I also loved the feeling of being co-thinkers and co-
learners on a topic of my interest.
ACS believes “feedback is most useful when it is strengths-based, bite-sized, timely, and
constructive” (2021b, para. 5). A coach reflected that this type of collaboration has a tremendous
impact. The structure of the model allows the coach to see teachers regularly and allows this type
of collaboration to be embedded in the product created.
As indicated by Bierly et al. (2015), when leaders work closely together with their teams,
excellent teaching is fostered and a learning environment is created in which students can thrive.
The data from the survey indicated that 86% of coaches felt like the coaching they provided
impacted instruction to a great extent, while 14% felt it somewhat impacted instruction. Kraft
and Blazar (2018) found that teachers who had been coached improved their instructional
practices “as much as, or more than, the difference in effectiveness between a novice and a
teacher with 5-10 years of experience” (p. 69). A coach shared that, “the focused feedback is
making teachers feel they are improving.” A teacher who felt it had impacted their instruction
shared, “I was able to implement strategies I learned during my coaching cycle right away.”
Another teacher said, “The type of questions and feedback provided caused me to think deeply
about my own practice and to make some changes.” Research suggests that teachers who
analyzed their teaching, to improve instruction, were more likely to change than if they were told
to change by a supervisor (Moche, 2000). Teachers were able to make the connection that
coaching can be used to improve student learning and outcomes. An elementary teacher reflected
on the connection, “I think the goal of having a coach is to improve practice. Improving practice

101

will always improve student learning.” A high school coach spoke to the importance of
continuing job embedded coaching:
I think it is really important to continue to get coaching in your job. Particularly once you
have been at your job for quite some time and perhaps plateaued on a competency level. I
think most of the teachers at ACS are pretty competent in their work. So, really one of the
few things that can move a teacher who is pretty competent is coaching.
Coaches and teachers agree that the power of a collaborative model is that it sets our leaders up
to “provide the kind of hands-on, day-to-day coaching and support - real feedback, not a
checklist - that will help teachers develop their skills and do what they came to do: make a real
difference in their students’ lives” (Bierly et al., 2015, p. 41).
Discussion: Research Question 2
To highlight the extent to which ACS implemented the PLC coaching model with
fidelity, the discussion for Research Question 2, regarding promising practices, is evaluated
through the use of the QIF. ACS’s desired Outcome 2 is in line with the themes that emerged
from Research Question 2 and closely follows Phase 3 of the QIF. ACS’s desired Outcome 2
was a desire to increase frequency and usefulness of feedback and learning opportunities for
teachers and strengthen the PLCs. The third phase of implementation is when implementation
actually begins and the focus is on ongoing structures.
Phase 3 of QIF
There are three important support strategies in Phase 3: providing needed, on-going,
technical assistance to teachers and coaches, monitoring on-going implementation through
process evaluation, and creating feedback mechanisms (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012).
This includes the piloting and refining of the model and gathering feedback from stakeholders to

102

make improvements based on what they learn (Bierly et al., 2015). Therefore, the corresponding
questions will be answered in the following section, linked to the promising practices, and shown
how they meet ACS’s desired Outcome 2 (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012):
1. Did ACS have a sound plan in place to provide needed technical assistance?
2. Was ACS able to assess the strengths and limitations that occurred during
implementation?
3. Was the feedback system rapid, accurate, and specific enough so that successes in
implementation can be recognized and changed to improve implementation quickly?
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance (TA) is commonly referred to as consulting. Consulting is the
process of providing targeted support to address a need or a problem. It is an effective method
for building the capacity of an organization (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). ACS’s TA
plan was included in the PLC Coach Prototype document. The desired outcomes were shared
early in the implementation process and carefully monitored (ACS, 2021c). The following TA
was provided to help the teachers and coaches deal with the inevitable practical problems that
developed once implementation began:
• training and support to PLC coaches using both internal and external expertise
• working with the instructional coaches throughout the divisions. This practice started
in January 2022
• external coaching provided to the coaches, one time per month, via Zoom meetings
• regular meetings with the respective division leadership teams to review how ACS
was doing on implementing key academic priorities and supporting teachers

103

• a 3 day cognitive coaching workshop that focused on facilitating conversations that
helped the teacher explore the thinking behind their practice in which administrators
from across the school joined and were trained alongside coaches
The coaches also met regularly with the deputy superintendent. The literature review revealed
that one of the most important factors, for SCS, appeared to be the support of the administration.
When the administration provided the necessary support the team leads felt empowered to build
leadership capacities (SCS, 2018b). Lyon (n.d.) confirmed that the principals are the most
relevant leaders for implementation efforts. At ACS coaches were able to bring their needs and
problems to the meeting and the deputy superintendent would gather resources, extra training,
and consulting to build the coaches capacity. One PLC in the elementary was struggling with
team dynamics and the deputy superintendent met with the team several times to provide
strategies and support. The deputy superintendent also provided one on one coaching with the
PLC coach.
A coach from the high school reflected on how coaches met with administration every
week or two for an hour to discuss what they were doing, why they were doing it, and what the
focus should be. They also practiced coaching conversations with each other and did classroom
walkthroughs. Another coach from the elementary describes the TA she received and how it was
beneficial:
I feel like connecting with others was really helpful. Not just to my other peer coaches,
but also my instructional coaches. I have also consulted with my supervisor, my deputy
principal, the deputy superintendent, my fellow teachers, and even some ELL teachers. If
you build a supportive team, you will improve your learning and have a better overall
perspective of what can be accomplished.

104

ACS was able to provide the necessary technical assistance to help the coaches deal with
the inevitable practical problems that developed once implementation began. This included
resolving administrative or scheduling conflicts that arose, acquiring more support or resources,
and making some required changes in the application of the innovation (Meyers, Wandersman,
& Durlak, 2012). ACS provided further training and practice in administering the more
challenging parts of the implementation. ACS’s plan provided the needed technical assistance for
the PLC coaching model to be implemented with quality and to help the coaches further grow
their capacity to facilitate learning on their teams.
Process Evaluation
According to Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012), “data is needed on how well
different aspects of the innovation are being conducted as well as the performance of different
individuals implementing the innovation” (p. 470). ACS was able to assess the strengths and
limitations that occurred during implementation through an anonymous survey that was
administered in October and again in May. The survey was given to the PLC coaches and
teachers and provided the information in Table 5 on the strengths and limitations (ACS, 2022c).

105

Table 5
Strengths and Limitations Found by ACS
Strengths Limitations
Prototype PLC coaches and teams actively
engaged and provided feedback
Needed to spend more time with coachees
to prepare them for their role in the
prototype
Eagerness by other teams to become a part of
the model for 2023–2023 (increase of 24
PLC coaches)
Needed greater clarity earlier about PLC
coach competencies, skills, and
dispositions
Overall positive impact on teaching Needed greater clarity about what high
quality teaching means at ACS
Overall positive impact on PLCs
Feeling supported by both school leaders and
central leaders

Note. Adapted from PLC Coach Training: Celebrate and Calibrate, by American Community
School, 2022c.

The strengths and limitations found by the ACS surveys were consistent with the
strengths and limitations of this study. The third finding claimed the PLC coaching process was
flexible, collaborative, and impacted instruction. The PLC coaching model was flexible in the
way it allowed coaches to make and learn from their mistakes, allowed for flexibility in the
schedule, the way it allowed the coaches to call upon different coaching models throughout the
coaching cycle, and the way flexibility was provided in personal goal setting. The PD became
more personalized since teachers were given a voice in their professional learning and
development (Hawk, 2020). The flexible schedule allowed for more time to collaborate. NORC’s
(Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018) national surveys found strong correlations between routine

106

collaboration, high levels of trust, and the quick spread of best practices. The process evaluation
conducted by ACS, and findings from this study, had similar findings. Kraft and Blazar (2018)
found that teachers who had been coached improved their instructional practices “as much as, or
more than, the difference in effectiveness between a novice and a teacher with 5–10 years of
experience” (p. 69).
The performance of coaches implementing the PLC coaching model were evaluated
through one on one conversations with department heads and divisional administration. Official
appraisals were not conducted by the PLC teams. Durlak and DuPre (2008) highlight that
without data, research cannot document precisely what program was conducted or how outcomes
should be interpreted. ACS plans to continue to evaluate the relative strengths and limitations of
the implementation of the PLC coaching model as it unfolds over time. It is unclear how the
coach's performance will be evaluated in the future.
Supportive Feedback Mechanism
ACS had an effective procedure through which key findings, from the process evaluation
related to implementation, could be communicated, discussed, and acted upon. According to
Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) feedback systems need to be “rapid, accurate, and
specific enough so that successes in implementation can be recognized and changed to improve
implementation quickly” (p. 471). ACS shared the process data, with all those involved in the
prototype, through emails and through presentations during coach meetings. The feedback
system was rapid, accurate, and specific. Results were also shared with Cohort 2 coaches who
will be joining the model in the 2023–2023year, in a PLC coach training session on May 24,
2022. The feedback was offered in the spirit of providing opportunities for further PD and
organizational growth which would lead to quality improvement in implementation (Meyers,

107

Wandersman, and Durlak, 2012). The feedback received led to a detailed PLC coaching
onboarding and support plan for Cohort 2.
Results: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was as follows: What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive
are the limitations? The purpose of this research question was to increase understanding of the
barriers that are specific to the implementation of the PLC coaching model at ACS and how
practices can be improved upon in order to reach the 2027 Strategic Plan of excellence. SCS
reflected on how understanding the challenges and realities of the TC model was incremental to
its implementation success (SCS, 2018b). Five themes emerged from Research Question 3,
which were all related to transparency and building capacity:
• greater clarity on the PLC coaching construct
• workload and time management
• equity issues centered on local teachers who were hired to cover the release time for
the coach
• establishing teacher buy-in
• PLC coach selection process
Greater Clarity on the PLC Coaching Model
At the time of this study, the data suggested there was a feeling of ambiguity on the
teachers’ part, concerning the PLC coaching model. Aguilar (2019) explains that programs fall
short due to a lack of structure for coaching programs. The results are teachers not knowing how
to utilize a coach and principals not knowing whether coaching is worth the investment. A
teacher from the high school reflected on the model as something still in development, and was
hoping there would be more clarity and training for the teachers. Teachers also expressed that

108

they felt teachers and coaches were not on the same page due to missing communication from
administration. Several suggested that some kind of onboarding, for their PLC, would have
solved this problem. The data suggested that teachers would like more clarity on the PLC
coaching construct, training on feedback and reflection, an understanding of coaching
expectations, and transparency on the potential transition to the coach becoming the teacher
evaluator. The teachers felt the coaches were in the loop but felt implementation would have
been more successful if information and communication were more transparent.
Clarity on the PLC Coaching Construct
Both teachers and coaches expressed a desire for greater clarity on the PLC coaching
construct. Implementation teams were familiar with the concept of teacher and leader, but
struggled to understand the roles and responsibilities of the coach. A teacher from the middle
school reflected, “I think that there are some inefficiencies in the system and those roles and
responsibilities are quite blurry.” Others expressed the feeling of ambiguity came from the sheer
number of initiatives and curriculum reviews that were taking place in the same year as the
prototyping of the model. According to Bird et al. (2016), adding new initiatives without
completing prior ones can exhaust or demoralize employees. It was also unclear, from team to
team, if goals were selected by the coach for the entire PLC, how long a coaching cycle should
take, if coaches offered release so teachers could observe each other teach, if teachers can watch
the coach teach, or if the coach were to be considered the expert. ACS did not intend the coach to
be considered the expert, but that expectation was not communicated to the teachers. Due to the
lack of clarity, four of the teachers interviewed and seven teachers on the survey felt like coaches
lacked the knowledge and ability to be the expert, which directly impacted the levels of trust.
There were also some structural questions regarding whether or not the PLC coach had to be the

109

PLC chair. Teachers want to see more of a distributive leadership model utilized for the PLC
coaching construct where responsibilities could be spread out across the team.
Teacher Training
The teacher survey showed that over 50% of the teachers did not receive any type of
training prior to prototyping the model and another 30% did not feel the training they received
was beneficial. This was the major contributing factor to the teachers feeling like there was a
lack of clarity around the model. McGatha (2008) points out that simply identifying the structure
does not provide the depth of understanding that is needed to support a teacher’s professional
growth. Albers and Pattuwage (2017) emphasized that “training and ongoing support are the
most critical implementation strategies reported on in educational studies” (p. 17). A coach from
the high school said, “I think more attention should have been given to onboarding and training
the teachers in my PLC, rather than relying on me as a coach to relay all important information
regarding the prototype.” Teachers and coaches expressed a desire for teachers to receive
training on how to receive feedback and how to engage in the reflection cycle. Coaches felt like
this training should come from someone other than the coach. The following ideas were
suggested, by the coaches, for teacher training:
• utilize monthly faculty meetings and in-service days
• share the failures and successes of other teams who prototyped the model
• videos of other schools who successfully implemented similar models
• provide a list of coaching expectations to the teachers
• provide a flexible list of some of the experiences teachers might anticipate having in
the next quarter
• videos of the conversations that take place during a coaching cycle

110

Coaching Expectations
Teacher and coach interviews and surveys revealed that ACS needs to ensure there is a
clear and consistent message and understanding of coaching expectations. It was unclear if
teachers had to participate in the prototyping of the model if their PLC team was selected.
Teacher interviews gave inconsistent feedback on the requirements and frequency of
participation depending on the PLC coach leading the team. For instance, a teacher said,
“the teachers had no say in deciding to be coached. I felt like the process was very non-
transparent.” Another teacher shared, “I expressed that I did not want to pilot the program, but
then I got notified that my team was going to and I had to be coached.” Likewise, the teacher
survey showed inconsistency in requirements and frequency. Three of the teachers who
responded received no coaching at all even though they were participating in the prototyping of
the model. Fifteen percent said they had one coaching interaction, 37% received 2-3, 9%
received 4-5, and 30% received more than six interactions. It appeared the size of the PLC
attributed to this outcome. The smaller the PLC the greater the expectation. It is unclear if these
teachers wanted more coaching or not. In an interview, a high school coach gave their opinion on
the need to communicate requirements and expectations to teachers:
It needs to be clear and teachers need to be told this is what we are doing. Everyone is
going to be coached. The way you might be coached is flexible and it doesn’t have to
look a certain way, but everyone is going to be coached.
Two teachers from the elementary school were worried that if they didn’t participate they were
in danger of losing their position. Another teacher contemplated the idea of giving students voice
and choice and wondered if that same value would be extended to teachers. It is unclear if
teachers will be expected to participate in the future and to what extent. But ACS might consider

111

that SCS (2019) found that teachers who were supported by a coach demonstrated higher growth
than teachers who were not supported by a coach and schools that piloted the TC program had
higher levels of morale (Bierly et al., 2015).
Coach As Evaluator
The teacher survey and interviews revealed that teachers were apprehensive of the coach
becoming the evaluators of the team. Currently the coach is not being used in this capacity, nor
has ACS communicated this as their intent, nevertheless the teachers expressed a concern over
the model moving in this direction. Similarly, this was the number one concern of teachers who
piloted the TC program for SCS (Bierly et al., 2015). In the end SCS utilized the coach as
evaluator despite the strong objection of many studies (Joyce & Showers, 1996; Showers, 1985;
Slater & Simmons, 2016). One of the elementary teachers interviewed at ACS noted, “I have
more of a fear for the future. I definitely think the teacher becoming the evaluator would change
the whole dynamic.” A high school teacher reflected on her coaching experiences this year and
shared that she trusted that her PLC coach would not use any of her observations in an evaluative
way. A teacher from the elementary school tied fear of appraisal to teacher buy-in when she
shared, “You have to take the time to really understand their concerns. Most teachers do want to
grow, but are maybe concerned that this is going to turn into an appraisal type structure.” If
coaches are asked to hold the dual role of administrator and coach, the coach is put in a difficult
situation. Knight (2009) believes that coaches will find it easier to have open conversations about
teaching practices and maintain trusting relationships if their teachers do not view them as a
boss. Another teacher from the elementary school pointed out that SCS, who ACS is using as a
model district, uses their coaching team as evaluators. It is unclear if ACS will move in this

112

direction. It would be beneficial to be transparent to increase buy-in and increase trust between
the teachers and coaches.
Workload and Time Management
The interviews and surveys revealed that coaches are still learning how to balance the
three positions as outlined in the PLC coaching construct. Curtis (2013) emphasizes that it takes
time for a teacher leader to train and do leadership work: “leading a team, coaching and
evaluating staff, building colleagues’ knowledge and skills around the Common Core” (p. 9).
Coaches are learning to manage their schedules which includes incorporating planning, lunch,
and leadership time into their day. The data shows that it has been especially challenging in job-
sharing positions, the Chinese immersion program, and in the world language departments.
Teachers also expressed a desire for more transparency on what the coaches are doing during
their coaching time.
Schedule
With 40–60% release time dedicated to take on the construct of PLC coach, the PLC
coach has had to learn how to manage a new schedule totally unique to their team and
department. The hybrid role, like the one ACS is utilizing, is a nice balance between formal and
informal, but it could “result in inefficient use of teacher leaders' time and expertise if roles and
responsibilities are not made clear” (Hunzicker, 2017, p. 13). The coach survey and interviews
revealed that coaches were still learning how to make the most sense of the release time. Some
coaches are coaching daily while others will teach for a full day and then coach for a full day.
Coaches are also trying to figure out comfort levels with how many coaching cycles they can
conduct at a time. A coach in the elementary school said that at first they were trying to coach
two teachers in a day and quickly learned that one was all that could effectively be coached.

113

Several coaches shared how they had to learn to say no as other teachers, and even
administration, assumed they had extra time and could take on extra responsibilities. One of the
coaches reflected on this encounter and said, “One thing that I have learned is that it is important
to have some clarity on roles and responsibilities in terms of the various roles of the department
chair, PLC coach, and teacher.” Another coach noted how the lines can become blurred easily
and you have to be very deliberate with your schedule. He said, “You also have to be very clear,
when working with other people, about which role you are showing up in.”
Another challenging factor that impacted the coaches mental wellbeing, was the ability to
incorporate planning, lunch, and leadership work into their daily schedule. A coach from the
elementary school noted, “I used my planning time to coach, so I ended up taking my planning
home.” Another coach noted how you have to be very effective in using your time otherwise you
will be overwhelmed. She goes on to say that she didn’t use her planning time well and was left
feeling depleted. Others expressed that when you have an overwhelming workload you have to
make time for teacher leadership duties or you will end up taking them home. A teacher noted
how her coach did not make time to have lunch this last year. It was concerning to her, but it
made her realize just how busy her coach was. A coach from the elementary school thought
about what she would like to share with Cohort 2. She said, “So this is also my advice to tell my
new PLC coaches next year, you have to set aside some time for your planning. Otherwise, you
will burn out.”
There was a discrepancy found in leadership release time between the elementary school
and the other divisions. In the middle school and high school the PLC chair has one release block
worked into their schedule where in the elementary school, no such planning time is allocated.
Teachers in the elementary are required to give up planning time to complete their leadership

114

responsibilities. This created further confusion, guilt, and roadblocks when it came to planning
these necessary tasks. It was suggested that coaches in the middle school and high school should
have 40% release time, in addition to their leadership planning block, and coaches in the
elementary school should have 60% release time so they can add leadership planning into their
release time. ACS (2021b) believes that team success is directly related to providing teacher
leaders with the time to lead and coach. In order to be successful, coaches need to make sure
their leading and coaching is well planned out. When teachers reflect on their experiences and
“use higher-order thinking to plan, monitor, evaluate, and modify tasks, growth will occur”
(Costa & Garmston, 2015, p. 8). Therefore, coaches need to take the initiative to be more
deliberate with allocating pieces of their day to these important events.
Job-Sharing
Coaches and teachers both expressed a concern over the complications that come from
job-sharing. In this model the PLC coach has approximately 40–60% release time, depending on
the division schedule, to support their team members with the remaining time spent teaching.
The release time, at the elementary level, is covered by permanent hires, not substitutes (ACS,
2021b). This means the PLC coach job-shares their teaching position. Job sharing is described as
“a part-time contract in which two employees are jointly responsible for the workload of one
position” (Williamson et al., 2015, p. 449). Two coaches, in the elementary, job shared during
the prototype and highlighted some of the challenges (Cafferty, 2019; Williamson et al., 2015).
• perceptions of job-sharers being less committed than standard employees
• difficulties arising from personal incompatibility between job-sharing partners or
communication failures
• alignment of PD sessions, crossover time, planning, preparation and assessment

115

• difficult to find the time to share knowledge of students, especially regarding
safeguarding of students
They were also concerned about the job-sharing positions for the upcoming 2023–2023school
year in the elementary school. Apparently, there was a teacher shortage which further
complicated the structure. One full time release teacher was hired to cover two coaches’
classrooms. The new hire will split time and have to learn the structure, routines, and students for
two different classrooms. This scenario is true for several grade levels in the elementary division.
There was concern over burn-out and the new hire only staying in that position for 1 year.
Cafferty (2019) believes job-sharing in education works well when there is a common vision and
there is a clear line of communication. Concern was shared over lack of time to communicate
and plan with the shared release teacher as the coach and release teacher are never in the class
together and the two coaches sharing the release teacher will not be out of the classroom at the
same time. Parent perceptions and pushback were also a concern of the coaches. Cafferty (2019)
suggests that transparency with parents about job-sharing is essential as they may be concerned
about student disruption. Leadership should also be mindful of what these types of arrangements
might look like from a student’s point of view (Cafferty, 2019). How many teachers will the
student see in a typical week? Cafferty (2019) says that these types of disruptions must be as low
as possible and arrangements must be approached with care, particularly when teaching younger
pupils.
Chinese Immersion and WL Command Structure and Ratio
The interview and survey data, from both the coaches and the teachers, revealed that the
Chinese immersion and world language programs had an ambiguous command structure, which

116

led to more meetings, which further impacted coaches schedules. A coach from the middle
school describes how it directly impacted him:
At one point, I was participating in coaching meetings from elementary, middle school,
and from World Languages. And that does not include cohort meetings. It was not
sustainable. I felt like I was spending my time sitting in coaching meetings when I needed
to be out coaching.
A Chinese immersion teacher reflected on the number of meetings she is required to attend.
Weekly she attends PLC immersion meetings on her grade level, grade level PLC meetings,
PLCC immersion meetings, and PLC grade level leader meetings. Bi-weekly she has meetings
with her content grade level team, her Chinese immersion director, and grade level deputy
principal. Monthly she attends immersion K–4 PLC meetings, faculty meetings, and Cohort 1
coaching meetings. Hawk (2020) and Odden and Picus (2020) maintain that coaches are often
spread too thin and principals have been found to use coaches in more administrative ways than
for individualized PD.
The Chinese immersion program and Chinese world language department are both large,
which creates some additional challenges. Larger teams mean more teachers to coach and more
leadership responsibilities. One of the coaches said, “Teachers have needs and come with
requests, so with a bigger team it requires more time to handle them which takes away from my
time to coach.” Currently, both programs have a 10 to one ratio. The testing that takes place at
the beginning of each semester, that the PLCC is responsible for, also takes several weeks away
from the coaching process.
The Chinese immersion program also had some special challenges all of its own. The
Chinese immersion coaches and teachers are asked to translate a lot of curriculum into the

117

English language. A teacher noted that sometimes the coach is asked to do curriculum work,
which she believes is not a good use of the coaches time. She feels that rather ACS should hire a
full time curriculum developer for new programs. Another challenge was the vertical coaching
structure the Chinese immersion program implemented. The coach was required to coach two
teachers from each grade level (K–G4). The different grade levels had different schedules which
made coordinating coaching times very rigid. The coach also explained that coaching content can
be challenging and takes up extra time as she is only the expert of content at her specific grade
level. It has added an additional layer of complexity that also impacts her schedule.
Release Time Accountability
Teachers communicated, through the survey, that they would appreciate more
transparency on how the coach spends their release time. Some elementary teachers expressed
that they knew the coach had extra time commitments and that release time does not
automatically mean more time, but would still appreciate the coach’s schedule being more
visible. A coach from the middle school agreed that teachers didn’t know how the coach spent
their day. He felt it was beneficial to over communicate how he spent his time. This created a
sense of accountability to his team. A coach from the high school published her calendar so
teachers would know exactly how she was spending her time. One of her teachers shared how
much she appreciated the transparency and how beneficial it was when trying to coordinate
schedules.
Local Hires and Equity
When new programs are adopted, schools must be deliberate and focused with efforts to
change professional practice, like hiring practices (Lyon, n.d.; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). The
coach interviews revealed that there is an opportunity to create more equitable hiring practices

118

centered on local hires. Teachers who were hired to cover release time for coaches in the
elementary school, were working well beyond their contractual hours. A coach in the elementary
school was concerned that her co-teacher felt she needed to stay additional hours to attend
meetings. The teacher did not need to stay for the meetings, but felt it was in her best interest if
she wanted to get hired for the full time job the following year. It was also noted that situations
like this will happen often, and teachers will move into full time jobs as soon as one comes open
and the coach will have the added challenge of teaching with a new teacher each year. A coach
from the elementary school asked, “How long can we make them stay? Even if they are working
full time between two classes?” She concludes that it is a huge amount of work and not
sustainable for the long haul. Another teacher was worried that if ACS hired an abundance of
part time teachers it would create some inequity due to the fact that part time teachers would
have to be local hired faculty, “which means they receive less than half of the pay and benefits of
an overseas hire, but might feel compelled to work longer hours.”
Teacher Buy-In
Achieving buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders was found to be critical to a
program’s success (Lyon, n.d.). The teacher and coach surveys and interviews revealed that close
to half of the teachers prototyping the model have a coaching forward mentality. A coach from
the high school reflected, “I work with eight teachers and maybe four or five of them are very
coaching forward and the other 3–4 are still kind of trying to figure out what the value is for
them.” A coach from the elementary also noted that it was about 50% of her team who had not
yet bought-in. Bird et al. (2016) noted the importance of identifying the people who have the
greatest influence on the individuals who will be grappling with behavior change, in order to
have them be the ones to share the case for change. Several coaches commented on the learning

119

curve and how teachers have to see the benefit themselves in order to invest the time. Coaches
agreed that there also has to be a clear message that teachers are not being coached because they
are bad teachers. Rather teachers are active participants and are regarded as the expert (Costa and
Garmston, 1989). Garmston et al. (1993) share that the ultimate goal is not to fix teachers but to
give teachers autonomy: “the ability to self-monitor, self- analyze, and self-evaluate” (p. 58).
The message and theory behind the model needs to be communicated clearly to the
teachers. A coach from the high school believes the program launch, with PLC teams, must be
well crafted so it will motivate the teachers. Teachers need to fully understand how coaching will
be beneficial to them. A teacher from the middle school reflected on how her coach's enthusiasm
was contagious and caused her to be more open to coaching. Lyon (n.d.) suggested promoting
“buy-in through targeted communications, messages, or testimonials from people who are
similar to or respected by the teachers” (p. 5). A teacher from the elementary school believes that
those who prototyped the model need to share their experience, good and bad, so others can see
it is a process and not a one size fits all approach. She went on to say, coaches need to really
listen to understand their teams’ concerns and clearly communicate they are not the expert, rather
more of a reflection partner. A coach from the high school and a coach from the middle school
agreed that it might be a good idea to start with the willing teachers and build success. The more
resistant teachers will see and hear the value and eventually get on board.
Building Capacity, Not Compliance
The teacher and coach survey results indicate a belief that participation in the PLC
coaching model will be a requirement and soon become a component of the ACS contract. The
concern was, if you do not buy into the model, your contract will not be renewed. A teacher who
responded to the survey wrote about concepts that might become tight and loose now that the

120

pilot year was over. The teacher commented that there are always pros and cons to having things
tight. For example, would mandatory participation of all PLC members be a good thing? It
would increase involvement, but would it be quality involvement? A demand for compliance
does not contribute to building a coaching culture. Rather focus should be on capacity building
which assumes individuals and groups have an intrinsic, mission-driven motivation to change,
given the right support. “Using the capacity lens can help districts develop change strategies that
ensure that people and teams in the system can understand, implement, and learn from the
change, not simply execute procedures” (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018, p. 3). A coach from the
elementary school spoke to the benefit of implementing this type of change strategy by
suggesting that if you have done the groundwork by sharing the why and purpose, it will create a
common understanding and people will feel a desire and an urgency to change. Knight (2011)
believes that when professionals are told what to do, and when and how to do it, there is a good
chance they are not learning at all. Building capacity, not compliance is further discussed in
Chapter Five, as an implication for practice.
PLC Coach Selection Process
The interviews and survey, from both the teacher and coaches, revealed a need to be
more consistent in the PLC coach selection process across the divisions and departments.
Teachers would appreciate more information on the qualification criteria and the protocol used to
select coaches. Teachers would also like to select their coaches and have the hiring process be
more transparent.
Ambiguity
A teacher from the elementary school and a teacher from the middle school had similar
experiences with ambiguity around the selection process, for Cohort 1, during the 2021–2022

121

school year. They explained that application criteria was not clearly communicated which
resulted in multiple teachers, from the same team, applying for one PLC coaching position. A
team from the middle school went to their administrator and asked what they should do if
multiple people were interested. They were told that anyone who was interested could apply. A
team from the elementary school had every single teacher on their team apply for the coaching
position. A teacher from that team explained:
Some time passed and we didn’t hear back from our administrator. Then one day our
PLC leader told us that if our team was selected to prototype the model, he would be our
coach. It would have been nice to have some kind of follow-up from our administrator on
the selection process.
Another team from the middle school had a similar experience. Several people applied for the
one position and they later learned who was hired from their PLC leader. She informed her team
that the administration had told her that the PLC coach had to be the department chair. This
criteria was not clearly shared at the beginning of the application process.
Qualifications
Teachers and coaches would like to see qualifications play more of a role in the coach
selection process. Teachers with coaching experience were passed over because they were not
the team lead. However, research shows that there are no formal pathways or training for
coaches entering the role and once in the position, coaches receive very little PD following, so it
may be difficult to find teachers who are highly qualified, with prior coaching experience
(Aguilar, 2013; Aguilar, 2019). One teacher noted that just because a person is a great leader
does not mean they will be a great coach and vice versa. Again, this raised the question, “do you
have to be a PLC leader to be a coach?” It was also noted that ACS needs to think about

122

backfilling positions when a coach takes a leave of absence. One of the teams in the elementary
school had a teacher leave on maternity leave, half way through the year, and the position was
not backfilled. The implementation of the PLC coaching model came to a halt for that team. This
left the team feeling undervalued in the implementation process. A teacher contemplated,
“Perhaps, the next most qualified teacher could have stepped into the coaching role.”
Selected by Teachers
The teacher survey revealed the role the teachers would like to play with nominating a
coach they trust. The teacher survey showed that 12% of the teachers did not trust their coach
and 9% somewhat disagreed with the statement, I trust my PLC coach. A teacher from the
elementary school reflected, “Teachers did not have a say in deciding who the coach would be.
The process was not very transparent.” Another teacher from the elementary school would like to
see administrators select the coach that has more team member support. It is believed team
members know their teachers best and can help select the teacher with the most experience and
content knowledge. However, other teachers were worried that this type of input from teachers
would make the coach selection process more of a popularity contest instead of basing it on
qualifications. It was concluded, through the data, that teachers would trust their coaches more if
they had a say in the selection process. At Kaizer Elementary, in SCS, teachers were allowed to
weigh in on who they thought the team leads should be (SCS, 2018b). They took pride in the
openness and transparency of the selection process.
Transparency
A couple of teacher interviews revealed that ACS had learned from the hiring challenges
of Cohort 1, in regards to clarity of qualification criteria and teacher participation in selection,
but still have some work to do in the area of being transparent in the selection process. In the

123

hiring of coaches for Cohort 2, three teams in the elementary school expressed concern for the
lack of clarity on the interview process and the final decision. A teacher shared how she had
applied for the coaching position before winter break and the school newsletter stated that
selections would be made and shared out prior to break. However, no one reached out to her to
interview or communicate who was selected as the team's second coach. Another teacher shared
how she had applied for a coaching position and the selection process took an unexpected turn.
Her team was asked to evaluate her strengths and weaknesses and rate her ability on a scale of 1–
5. This part of the process was not clearly communicated prior to the application. The teacher
later sat down with her administration team and went over each response and rating. When it
came to deciding between the two coaches, the other teacher was selected. When she asked for
clarification on how the decision was made, she was informed that the other teacher received a
higher peer score. She questioned the purpose of the rating scale and thought a question asking if
you would support this teacher or not, as a coach, would be a better option. Making a major
decision like this based on a few points made it feel like a popularity contest. The teacher felt the
process was not equitable as the other teacher had a larger PLC which equated to more people in
support of her. She reflected on how this process might make other teachers feel:
It is kind of a lose-lose situation, because not only are you not getting the position, but
you also may feel that other people on your team are not supporting you. ACS needs to
make the application process very clear and share the weight of the different parts of the
application. If I had been aware of the process, I’m not sure if I would have applied.
The last teacher said she had applied for the coaching position without fully knowing what the
selection process would be if there were more than one applicant. Along the way she learned that
it involved her team providing feedback on a Google Form, sitting down with her supervisors

124

and identifying her own strength and areas of growth, then hearing the strength and growth areas
her team identified, and then seeing how they all rated her. She felt it was really hard but also felt
that if she knew it was coming, it would have been easier. She went on to share how it stressed
the team out and no one was comfortable with the process. She said, “They were not comfortable
with giving this type of feedback. The process really got to the crux of providing this kind of
feedback and showed we have some work to do in this area.” She was thankful for the feedback
and felt like even if she didn’t get the position she at least knew what area she needed to grow.
The process that took place in the last two examples is in line with what the teachers were
asking for in the last section. ACS is listening to teacher feedback and constantly working to
improve the model. A teacher reflected, “Receiving feedback from your peers is humbling and
challenging and will take some time to get used to.” All three teachers thought it would be
helpful for the school to have a written process so teachers know what to expect when they apply
for a coaching position.
Discussion: Research Question 3
To highlight the extent to which ACS implemented the PLC coaching model with
fidelity, the discussion for Research Question 3, centered on the limitations of the model, is
evaluated through the use of the QIF. ACS’s desired Outcome 1, to create opportunities that
allow ACS to test and learn from teacher leadership and feedback approaches in context, is in
line with the themes that emerged from Research Question 3 and closely follow Phase 4 of the
QIF. The fourth phase of the QIF involves improving future applications (Meyers, Wandersman,
and Durlak, 2012).

125

Phase 4 of QIF
The intent of Phase 4 is to learn about implementation from practical experiences and
from the feedback received from host staff (Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak, 2012). The
primary question in the fourth phase is, ‘‘What has this effort taught us about quality
implementation?” The research indicates that through retrospective analysis and self-reflection,
coupled with feedback from the teachers and coaches, ACS was able to identify particular
strengths and weaknesses that occurred during implementation (Meyers, Wandersman, and
Durlak, 2012). A coach from the high school felt like there had been a lot of support,
encouragement, and grace given to everyone and was appreciative that there was no expectation
to be perfect. It really felt good to them to be in a position where they could “kind of play in the
sandbox a little bit,” and “if the end result was not exactly what they wanted it was okay.”
“Researchers and innovation developers can learn how to improve future implementation
efforts if they critically reflect on their experiences and create genuine collaborative relationships
with those in the host setting” (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012, p. 470). ACS has been
able to accomplish this through the feedback system it created, which were discussed back in the
Results section of Research Question 3. Much like SCS, they used these feedback loops to create
a Guidebook to Teaching as a step by step on how to navigate the systems to successfully
implement the PLC coaching mode.
Lessons Learned
In Phase 4, lessons learned about implementing the innovation are also shared with others
who have an interest in its use (Meyers, Wandersman, and Durlak, 2012). George Washington
school in SCS published what they learned in the district staff newsletter and used what they
learned from the walkthroughs to drive their whole staff professional learning sessions (SCS,

126

2018b). Likewise, to share the lessons learned ACS had Cohort 1 coaches attend PLC coach
training and do several panel type interviews, with members of Cohort 2, during the spring of
2022. Coaches from Cohort 1 were able to provide insight on the application of the model and
the time it takes to settle into the new role. An example of this comes from a coach in the middle
school who felt like all his hard work was finally paying off. He reflected on how he had seen
instruction improve significantly, in teachers’ classrooms, in the last few months. He attributed
this shift to teachers' comfort level being coached and the ease he was feeling in his new role. He
encouraged new coaches to be patient and know you are making a difference. Cohort 2
appreciated the perspectives and insights from Cohort 1. The collaborative relationship built
between the two cohorts created open avenues for constructive feedback on such important
matters as the use, modification, or application of the PLC coaching model and factors that may
have affected the quality of its implementation (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). ACS
plans to continue this collaborative relationship, between Cohort 1 and 2, as it moves into coach
training in the fall of 2022.
Summary
The qualitative data, collected from the teacher and coach interview responses as well as
the survey results, revealed much about the structure of the PLC coaching construct, the
promising practices, and the limitations experienced by ACS during the implementation process.
The four phases of quality implementation were also carefully reviewed, evaluated, and
compared to the research results. The four phases of quality implementation are as follows:
• initial considerations regarding the host setting
• creating a structure for implementation
• ongoing structure once implantation begins

127

• improving future application
The data was further reviewed through the QIF to highlight the extent to which ACS met its
desired outcomes and implemented the PLC coaching model with quality.
The first finding from the research related to coaches’ perceptions of the implementation
of the PLC coaching model, in relation to the infrastructure of the construct, coach training, and
on-going support, indicated that the coaches felt well prepared. Three themes emerged in relation
to feeling of preparedness:
1. ACS created a coaching construct which gave teachers the time and autonomy to
teach, lead, and coach the members of their team.
2. Initial and ongoing training helped the coaches feel prepared.
3. Initial and ongoing training have instilled a level of trust, in the coach, from the
teacher.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the QIF were achieved through the use of assessments to create a clear
plan that included desired outcomes, purposeful training, a clear selection process, and prototype
parameters to enhance accountability during implementation. ACS successfully created a
coaching construct that gave teachers the time and autonomy to teach, lead, and coach the
members of their team. Initial and ongoing training helped the coaches feel prepared and fostered
a feeling of trust on their teams. The theme of feeling prepared to implement the model is an
indication that ACS is well on its way to achieving the element of excellence in the 2027
Strategic Plan.
The second finding from the research, related to the flexibility of the model and feedback
opportunities, indicated that this kind of flexibility promoted day-to-day collaboration, which in

128

turn helped build trusting relationships, which resulted in high-quality instruction. Three themes
emerged in relation to flexibility:
• flexibility of the PLC coaching model that promoted reflective practices
• flexibility in goal setting aligned to PLC work
• collaborative feedback that built relationships and impacted instruction
Phase 3 of the QIF was achieved by adhering to the support strategies of providing needed on-
going technical assistance to teachers and coaches, monitoring on-going implementation through
process evaluation; and creating feedback mechanisms. Phase 3 of the QIF was achieved by
providing needed on-going technical assistance to teachers and coaches, monitoring on-going
implementation through process evaluation, and creating feedback mechanisms (Meyers,
Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). By carefully following Phase 3 of the QIF, ACS was able to
ensure Outcome 2, a desire to increase frequency and usefulness of feedback and learning
opportunities for teachers and strengthen the PLCs, was accomplished. More specifically, this
was accomplished by the piloting and refining of the model and gathering feedback from
stakeholders to make immediate improvements based on what they learned. The refinement of
the model contributed to and enhanced the promising practices. A promising practice that
emerged from the data is the idea of creating classroom lab sights as part of an expanded
disturbed leadership model. This lab model will create even more opportunities for teachers to
collaborate and learn from each other. The lab model concept will be expanded upon in Chapter
Five.
The third finding from the research, related to limitations, revealed the importance of
being transparent and building faculty capacity. Five themes emerged, in relation to limitations,
from the data:

129

• a need for greater clarity on the PLC coaching construct
• workload and time management
• equity issues centered on local teachers who were hired to cover the release time for
the coach
• establishing teacher buy-in
• PLC coach selection process
Phase 4 of the QIF was achieved by having a commitment to future application of the model.
ACS’s desired Outcome 1, to create opportunities that allow ACS to test and learn from teacher
leadership and feedback approaches in context was accomplished. ACS was willing to learn
about the implementation from practical experiences and from the feedback received from
teachers and coaches (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). The teachers and coaches have
been a catalyst for structural and cultural change, which is going to produce the instructional
changes ACS was hoping for, as noted in the 2027 Strategic Plan. A promising practice that
emerged from the limitation data is the idea of creating capacity, over compliance, when it
comes to teacher buy-in and application of the model. This concept will be expanded upon in
Chapter Five.
In Chapter Five, these findings will be discussed in connection with the supporting
literature on quality implementation utilized to achieve the ACS 2027 Strategic Plan, utilizing
class lab sights to enhance distributed leadership, and building capacity as a way to increase
teacher buy-in. Chapter Five will also reveal implications for practice and possibilities for future
research.

130

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this research project was to study how American Community School
(ACS) implemented a distributed leadership model, called the professional learning community
(PLC) coaching model, that empowered leaders with the time and authority to focus on both
leading and coaching the members of their teams. This study was designed to gather teachers’
perceptions of the promising practices and limitations related to the implementation of the PLC
coaching model. Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012) quality implementation framework
(QIF) was utilized, as an appraisal tool, to provide a series of coordinated steps, which include
assessment, collaboration and negotiation, monitoring, and self-reflection, to ascertain whether
the desired goals were achieved. The three research questions that guided this study were as
follows:
1. How does an international school implement the PLC coaching model?
a. To what extent did PLC coach pilot teachers feel they received proper training
and on-going support?
b. What are pilot teachers’ perceptions of the infrastructure, skills, and
motivation needed for the model to be implemented with quality?
2. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the promising practices?
3. What do PLC coaches and pilot teachers perceive are the limitations?
This qualitative study used a semi-structured interview approach to collect data from
participants. Five PLC coaches and nine teachers, all from ACS, were interviewed. This study
also utilized a coach survey and a teacher survey to collect data from participants. Document
analysis was used to triangulate the research findings and to better understand the themes that

131

emerged. The eight steps of the interpretive approach were utilized to analyze the data from the
individual interviews and the open response questions on the survey.
Chapter Five will further discuss the findings of each theme that emerged, in relation to
the QIF, and it being implemented with quality. It will also reveal implications for practice and
possibilities for future research.
Summary of Findings
The qualitative data analysis, with the assistance of the QIF, revealed a successful PLC
coaching construct design and several promising practices. In addition, the qualitative data
provided an understanding of the limitations ACS experienced when implementing the PLC
coaching model. The research indicated that through retrospective analysis and self-reflection,
coupled with feedback from the teachers and coaches, ACS was able to identify particular
strengths and weaknesses that occurred during implementation (Meyers, Wandersman, &
Durlak, 2012). The overall findings, after a careful analysis using the QIF, is that ACS
implemented the PLC coaching model with quality. Implementing the model with quality is an
indicator of future success with the PLC coaching model which will contribute to the 2027
strategic goal of excellence.
Findings were consistent with the results found in Star City Schools (SCS): ACS found a
model that is “sustainable in which every teacher in the building can get the coaching they need
to dramatically improve their practice in a short period of time” (SCS, 2018b, p. 4). This was
confirmed by the four findings that emerged from the themes. The four findings that emerged
were:
1. The carefully crafted design of the coaching construct and rationale gave teachers the
time and autonomy to teach, lead, and coach the members of their team.

132

2. Critical components of capacity building are recruiting trusted leaders, obtaining
explicit buy-in, and training for both coaches and teachers.
3. The PLC coaching process was flexible which led to collaboration and impactful
instruction.
4. ACS established a collaborative feedback system to improve future application.
The first three findings came with some limitations as it is impossible to implement with 100%
fidelity (Durlak & DuPre, 008). However, it has been noted by Durlak and DuPre (2008), that
positive implementation results can be obtained with levels of 60% and that few studies have
attained levels greater than 80%. Therefore, the four findings will be discussed while keeping the
promising practices and limitations in mind.
Well Crafted Design
The first finding highlighted that ACS was able to successfully create a coaching
construct that gave teachers the time and autonomy to teach, lead, and coach the members of
their team. Utilizing Phase 1 of the QIF determined that ACS was able to use assessments to
create a clear plan that included desired outcomes, purposeful training, a clear selection process,
and prototype parameters to enhance accountability during implementation (Meyers,
Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). Through this process they were able to successfully create the
coaching construct. Having the coach teach 40–60% of their day, kept them grounded in their
pedagogical practices. Riveros et al. (2013) asserted that “deep knowledge of teaching, learning,
and students gives teachers credibility among their peers, which expands their ability to influence
others” (p. 6). It was also found that this construct allowed the coach to lead in such a way that
they went beyond the technical requirements of their job to support both the individual and
collective growth of the PLC in ways that better supported student learning and ACS’s strategic

133

direction (Danielson, 2007). Leaders felt empowered and more confident to lead change in this
new construct (Hunzicker, 2017). Finally, it was found that the coach, in their coaching capacity,
helped teachers to further strengthen and develop their classroom practices. As teachers worked
directly with a coach to set goals and work to meet them, as asserted by Aguilar (2013) and
Hawk (2020), the professional development (PD) was more personal and created an opportunity
for powerful conversations, deeper reflection, and more risk taking in order to change
instructional practices. The PLC coaching construct was well crafted and utilized distributed
leadership to set leaders up to provide hands-on, day-to-day coaching and real feedback (Bierly
et al., 2015). Joyce and Showers (1983) agree with this approach and believe most coaching
should be performed by teams of teachers working together due to their proximity, close
relationships, and an excellent position to carry out the coaching functions.
In regards to the PLC coaching construct it was further found that coaches are still
learning how to balance the three positions outlined in the construct. Curtis (2013) emphasizes
that it takes time for teacher leaders to do leadership work and learning how to balance a
schedule is a necessary component. It was also found that teachers need more clarity on the PLC
coaching construct, an understanding of coaching expectations, and transparency on the potential
transition to the coach becoming the teacher evaluator. Teachers need to know how the coach
spends their time and what is expected of them. Hunzicker (2017) believes hybrid models, like
this one, offer a nice “balance between formal and informal, but may result in inefficient use of
time and expertise if roles and responsibilities are not made clear” (p. 3). This may result in
coaches taking on more administrative responsibilities and be left with little time to work with
teachers (Knight, 2008; Odden & Picus, 2020). Understanding the challenges and realities of the
model is incremental to its implementation success (SCS, 2018b).

134

Capacity Building
The second finding asserts that the critical components of capacity building are recruiting
trusted leaders, obtaining explicit buy-in, and training for both coaches and teachers. Meyers,
Wandersman, and Durlak (2012) found that organizational capacity and effective
implementation are directly related. Utilizing Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the QIF, which focuses on
building capacity and creating a structure for implementation, it was determined that trusted
leaders were recruited, buy-in was obtained by the majority who would be prototyping the
model, and initial and ongoing training helped the coaches feel prepared and fostered a feeling of
trust on their teams. The teachers recruited were committed and felt ownership of the
implementation process (Earl et al., 2016). These influential individuals, as noted by Rogers
(2003), were adventuresome, open to change, and helped cultivate an atmosphere conducive to
trying new approaches. Buy-in from administration, coaches, and teachers was important
because it produced the kind of long-term dedication that was necessary to successfully
implement the PLC coaching model (Lyon, n.d.; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). According to
Albers and Pattuwage (2017), training and ongoing support are the most critical implementation
strategies reported on in educational studies. ACS was able to provide ongoing PD that
supported the coaches in being transformational leaders (Curtis, 2013; Nelson & Dunsmore,
2018).
In regards to capacity building it was further found that buy-in is not school wide,
teachers need initial and ongoing training, and trust is an essential component in the teacher
coach relationship. Buy-in from the administration team and coaches was present, but only about
half of the teachers who prototyped the model had fully bought in. As the PLC coaching model is
scaled, obtaining explicit buy-in from all the stakeholders is essential. Lyon (n.d.) suggested that

135

including a wide range of stakeholders in the decision making will increase buy-in. He also
suggested promoting “buy-in through targeted communications, messages, or testimonials from
people who are similar to or respected” by the teachers (p. 5). Another way to increase buy-in
and build capacity is through teacher training (Turnbull, 2002). It was found that teachers did not
receive initial training and this impacted their understanding of the model and the coaching
process. Teachers need to fully understand how coaching will be beneficial to them and what to
expect during a coaching cycle. It was further found that teachers have to trust their leader and
ACS can work to build a coaching culture that includes a culture of trust. Teachers with
significant teaching experience, who demonstrate high levels of instructional expertise,
collaboration, and reflection were found to be more respected and trusted by their peers (Furtado
& Anderson, 2013). Knight (2011) believes trust can be achieved when coaches and teachers
interact equally as partners. Bair (2017) asserted that there seemed to be a relationship between
the willingness to be vulnerable and the emergence of trust with others. It was concluded that
teachers would trust their coaches more if they had a say in the selection process.
Flexible, Collaborative, and Impactful
The third finding asserts that the PLC coaching process was flexible which led to
collaboration and impactful instruction. Utilizing Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the QIF, which focused
on structure and implementation, it was determined that the model’s greatest asset was
flexibility. The PLC coaching model allowed coaches to make and learn from their mistakes,
allowed for flexibility in the schedule, and the way it allowed the coaches to call upon different
coaching models throughout the coaching cycle. This flexibility promoted day-to-day
collaboration, which in turn helped build trusting relationships, which resulted in high-quality
instruction. As indicated by Bierly et al. (2015), when leaders work closely together with their

136

teams, excellent teaching is fostered and a learning environment is created in which students can
thrive. NORC’s (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018) found similar results in their national surveys.
NORC found strong correlations between routine collaboration, high levels of teacher trust, and
the quick spread of best practices. Much like Miller School of Technology, it was found that the
PLC coaching model built the capacity of teachers to improve instruction, and empowered them
to bring problems of practice to the table which impacted student learning (SCS, 2018b).
It was further found that the flexibility of the model also came with its challenges.
Flexibility, if not given parameters, can lead to ambiguity which can create inequitable practices.
It was found that job-sharing, if not given a framework, may lead to the release teacher working
well beyond their contracted hours. Many of the release teachers were hired on local contracts
which further perpetuated the disparity due to the difference in pay. It was also found that the
number of teachers that coaches were expected to coach varied across the departments and
divisions. This led to some teachers being coached more than others and coaches being spread
too thin (Hawk, 2020; Odden & Picus, 2020). The middle school and high school block schedule
allowed for more defined prep and lead time with an additional PLCC prep block allotted. The
depth and breadth of some of the departments, like the world language and Chinese immersion
program, led to more meetings and leadership responsibilities. Understanding the challenges and
realities of the model is incremental to its implementation success and ability to create more
equitable practices.
Collaborative Feedback System
The fourth finding highlights the importance of creating collaborative feedback systems.
Utilizing Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the QIF, which focuses on ongoing structures and improving
future application, it was determined that ACS was able to test and learn from teacher leadership

137

and feedback approaches in context (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). More specifically,
this was accomplished by the piloting and refining of the model and gathering feedback from
stakeholders to improve future application. As seen in the redesign of the PLC coach hiring
process, ACS was able and willing to refine the model, based on feedback, to make immediate
improvements. Through the feedback loops, ACS administration was also able to quickly see the
misstep made by not training the teachers on the PLC coaching construct and are adjusting this
for Cohort 2. It was found that ACS’s desired Outcome 1, to create opportunities that allow ACS
to test and learn from teacher leadership and feedback approaches in context was accomplished.
ACS has been willing to share the lessons learned through implementing the PLC coaching
model and can therefore improve future implementation. As notes by Lyon (n.d.) and Nelson and
Dunsmore (2018), strategic implementation can be the difference between a program that fails
and a program that creates sustainable change.
In summary, the case studies conducted by ACS, and their findings, support and confirm
the findings of other case studies such as the SCS study. The studies revealed the importance of
achieving teacher buy-in, being open and transparent in the selection process of the coach, and
the importance of refining the schedule. The studies also discovered that overall accountability
increased when every team member felt like part of the implementation process and felt like they
could give feedback and ask questions. The importance of developing the coach so they could
effectively guide their teams and flexibility in the implementation process were also found to be
beneficial. Flexibility came in the form of time allowed to implement and flexibility in the
coaches work schedule.

138

Implications for Practice
This study focused on understanding how ACS implemented the PLC coaching model
and the promising practices and limitations that emerged along the way. Three implications for
practice and recommendations can be drawn from the research results:
• create a culture of coaching
• build capacity, not compliance
• increase the distributed leadership model by incorporating a classroom lab model for
each content area
The implications of this study lead to a variety of recommendations that could play a role in
future application and impact the success of the PLC coaching model and will help ACS meet
the 2027 Strategic Plan element of excellence.
Create a Culture of Coaching
The first implication that emerged was a need to establish a culture of coaching.
Coaching is not a standalone exercise. There needs to be a whole cultural shift. The shift has to
take place in the way the entire school collaborates and thinks of coaching. One of the coaches in
the elementary stated, “A big missing piece of the model is an opportunity to bring our teams
along. We are dealing with a school wide culture shift and it would be helpful to have time set
aside to establish the new culture.” Teachers have to understand that coaching is about
professional learning, respecting each other, and building a partnership to improve student
outcomes. Knight (2011) has created a framework for the thought and theory of creating and
maintaining a culture of coaching, he calls it a Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction.
He sees coaching as a partnership between coaches and teachers. He believes that when coaches
and teachers interact equally as partners, trust is built and good things happen (Knight, 2011).

139

The partnership principles are used as touchstones for reflecting on past work and planning for
future work. This approach is articulated in seven principles, which are derived from research,
theoretical writing in a variety of fields, and validated in a study of two approaches to PD
(Knight, 2007). Knight’s (2007) partnership principles are as follows:
1. Equality-instructional coaches and teachers are equal partners.
2. Choice-teachers should have choice regarding what and how they learn.
3. Voice-professional learning should empower and respect the voices of teachers.
4. Reflection-reflection is an integral part of professional learning.
5. Dialogue-professional learning should enable authentic dialogue.
6. Praxis-teachers should apply their learning to their real-life practice as they are
learning.
7. Reciprocity-instructional coaches should expect to get as much as they give. (32)
Identifying the principles is important because the way we act grows naturally out of what we
believe, and what we believe becomes culture (Knight, 2011). Putting these principles into
practice, and seeing the coach as a true partner, will create a shift to establishing a coaching
culture. One of the teachers in the elementary described what the shift in culture might
eventually look like:
Teachers will not be so isolated, doors will be open, teachers will be moving between
each other's classrooms to talk about instruction and look at student data, and teachers
will feel comfortable with other people coming into their classroom and offering critical
feedback.

140

Build Capacity, Not Compliance
The second implication that emerged is the concept of building capacity, over
compliance. “Educational improvement can be framed as a contrast between compliance-driven
and capacity driven strategies” (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018, p. 3). While change strategies driven
by compliance assume individuals need to be pressured to change, capacity-driven strategies
“focus on systems and assume that individuals and groups in the system have an intrinsic,
mission-driven motivation to change, given the right supports” (Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018, p.
3). By utilizing the capacity lens ACS can develop change strategies that the coaches and
teachers can understand, implement, and learn from, not simply execute procedures (Nelson &
Dunsmore, 2018).
ACS teachers expressed concern over participation in the PLC coaching model becoming
mandatory and linked to continuation of contracts. Coaching is part of the 2027 Strategic Plan
and teachers will more than likely be expected to participate. It is recommended that ACS work
to build the capacity in their organization instead of demanding compliance. This would be in
ACS’ best interest as it has been found that organizational capacity and effective implementation
are directly related (Meyers, Wandersman, & Durlak, 2012). Training, support from program
developers, administrator buy-in, and control over classroom implementation were stronger and
more constant predictors of teacher buy-in than mandating compliance (Lyon, n.d.; Nelson &
Dunsmore, 2018, p. ). Aguilar (2019) found that coaching programs are most successful when
organizations encourage and commend those who seek out opportunities to grow and do not
coerce or mandate their employees to participate. Knight (2011) believes that teachers may see
coaching as punishment when forced, but when coaching is offered as many ways they can
conduct professional learning, they often see it as valuable.

141

Nelson and Dunsome (2018) conducted a national survey that included over 30 high-functioning
districts and created a blueprint for capacity-driven professional learning systems. The strategies
that did and did not contribute to the development of capacity building are summarized in Figure
5. It is recommended that ACS embrace the practice of building capacity, over compliance, as it
will build a more successful program and better prepare teachers and coaches.

142

Figure 5
Builds Capacity: Does Not Build Capacity

143

Note. From “A Leader's Guide to Building Instructional Capacity” by C. Nelson and K.L.
Dunsmore, 2018. (https://www.norc.org/PDFs/LOCI/District Capacity White Paper_2018.pdf).
Copyright 2018 by the Literacy Organizational Capacity Initiative.

Create a Lab Classroom Model
The third theme that emerged is the concept of creating lab classroom sights as part of an
expanded disturbed leadership model that has been created by the implementation of the PLC
coaching model. According to Houk (2010), the lab classroom is an in-house PD model that
takes place during the normal school day, in a host teacher's room. The session would be framed
by a pre observation meeting and a debriefing session. The lab classroom provides opportunity
for colleagues to see ideas in practice. This lab model will create even more opportunities for
teachers to collaborate and learn from each other. Nelson and Dunsome (2018) conducted a
national survey from 2012–2015, in which “teachers rated collaborative time with other
educators as by far the form of professional learning that had the most impact on their practices”
(p. 14). The survey also revealed that teaching in an American school is a highly isolated
profession and compared to other schools world-wide, American teachers spend more time
instructing students and less time sharing their craft with their peers. Other studies have found
that shared leadership has a greater impact on student achievement than individual leadership
(Nappi, 2014).
When asked about an ideal model, 10 participants from the teacher and coach interviews
described a model similar to a lab classroom model. A middle school teacher reflected on a
similar model as being the best PD she ever had. “Every year I was able to see three different
teachers teach the same lesson. I was able to compare and saw how the slightest change could

144

make such a huge impact on the lesson and student learning.” A teacher from the elementary
school described her favorite part of being coached at a different school, “My coach covered my
class so I could go and visit other teachers’ classrooms.” A teacher from the middle school
reflected on how she used to be part of a lab model:
A group of teachers came to my room to see how I used self-assessment. I taught
my lesson and then had my students talk to the teachers about the benefits of self-
assessment and how it helped them reflect on their learning.
A teacher from the high school shared her thoughts on using more of a lab approach:
I think we can learn from everybody, not just the people who are the coaches. It would be
fantastic if there were some kind of opportunity, as a team, to have the time to tap into
each other's expertise, knowledge, and strengths. My strongest professional learning
occurred when I was part of a multidisciplinary team. We all had different strengths and
different training, from different backgrounds and were open to sharing them with each
other.
Another common theme was that teachers who were part of the PLC coach prototype
wanted their coaches to provide release time for them to go watch their fellow colleagues teach.
Only one teacher interviewed said her coach provided release time for her. A teacher from the
survey said,
I wished I had the ability for my PLC coach to cover my class so I could meet with
another colleague who I need help with in terms of teaching a new course. I think some
of the best coaching and learning is observing your fellow PLC members as they instruct
the same topics.

145

A teacher from the elementary school reflected on her experience prototyping the PLC coaching
model and what she thought it was lacking:
I would have liked to watch my coach teach a lesson or watch some of the other teachers
on my team teach a lesson. I think that there are a lot of really interesting things
happening in other classrooms that you can't get into, because you're teaching at the same
time. I would suggest the coach be able to cover a class so that you can go in and see
others teach.
It is suggested that each subject area or content team ask for teacher volunteers to be the
classroom lab. Ideally, each grade level would have two labs per content area. Teachers who
were willing to volunteer as a lab sight would be compensated with a stipend. The PLC coach
would work as the facilitator to organize the schedule and manage the discussions. The coach
would also provide the release time for teachers to visit the lab. A coach from the elementary
school shared how her previous school provided the release time:
Twice a year our administrator helped arrange a sub and a schedule. The sub would cover
a block, which allowed the teacher to join the coach in a peer observation. A pilot
teacher, from Lapeer Community Schools in Michigan shared her school also used roving
subs so all teachers could visit the lab six times throughout the year using a 3 hour block
of time for the pre observation, observation time, and debriefing (Houk, 2010).
The lab teachers might also be video recorded by the coach and used as PD. The PLC
would watch the video and the coach would lead the team in a discussion of the observation,
prompting questions, ideas, and reflections. “Participants need to understand that the term lab
implies practice and experimentation, not perfection” (Houk, 2010, p. 9). To address these
concerns, Houk (2010) suggested the lab classroom requires explicit communication and

146

mutually accepted norms. This type of model would challenge ACS to rethink distributed
leadership, would get more community members engaged, and increase overall accountability.
SCS discovered that overall accountability was increased when every team member felt like part
of the implementation process (SCS, 2018b). Although implementation of the lab classroom
takes time, if done correctly it could be an effective model for sustained professional learning
(Houk, 2010).
Action Steps
The three recommendations will take focused attention and time to develop and
implement. Therefore, it is recommended that ACS consider the following more timely action
steps, to start building capacity, which will contribute to creating a culture of coaching. It is
suggested that ACS launch the coaching program, at the beginning of the year, in a way that will
build teacher buy-in. This would include cohort one sharing success stories and leadership
providing comprehensive training for teachers. Teachers need to walk away feeling informed and
prepared to participate in the coaching cycle. ACS should also consider hiring the half time
release teachers to work full time, in just one teacher’s room, and the release teachers who will
be split between two classrooms should be hired to work full time in just one. Another full time
release teacher should be hired to work with the other coach. ACS should make a financial
investment to fully support the coaches and classroom communities impacted. This would
eliminate the inequity associated with the part time local hire. It would also create the
opportunity for coaches in the elementary to have 60% release time, rather than 50%, allowing
them to have a built-in leadership planning block. The final action step ACS should take is to
make the hiring process open and transparent. The selection process needs to be well-

147

documented and teachers need to be aware of the steps that will take place if more than one
person applies for the position.
Future Research
This study focused on understanding how ACS implemented the PLC coaching model
and the promising practices and limitations that emerged along the way. In considering future
research related to the implementation of the PLC coaching model, five recommendations for
future research are suggested:
• essential QIF steps for achieving desired outcomes
• degree to which coaching increased student achievement
• the impact of co-teaching on student achievement and teacher self-efficacy
• the cost-benefit analysis of adopting a program like the PLC coaching model
• successful scaled implementation of the PLC coaching model
Essential QIF Steps
This study found that the QIF is a promising tool for promoting quality implementation.
The framework helped synthesize and translate complicated issues that occurred during
implementation. According to Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al., “the QIF will narrow the gap
between the science and practice of implementation and promote the quality use of innovations
in organizations and communities” (2012, p. 494). However, further research is needed on which
of its components and actions steps are most essential for achieving desired outcomes.
Student Achievement Due to Coaching
Kraft and Blazar (2018) found that teachers who had been coached improved their
instructional practices “as much as, or more than, the difference in effectiveness between a
novice and a teacher with 5–10 years of experience” (p. 69). Likewise, participants in the study

148

felt instructional practices improved and several made claims that it impacted student
achievement. However, it is unclear just how much student achievement improved. Lyon’s (n.d.)
notes that student outcomes need to also be evaluated as adequate implementation outcomes do
not necessarily mean that student outcomes have improved. Further study should be conducted
on the degree to which coaching improves student achievement. This might include expanding
the capacity for analyzing and using student data.
The Impact of Co-teaching
Grade level PLC coaches, in the elementary school, all have a co-teacher that provides
between 40–60% release time. Students in these classrooms will have two homeroom teachers
the entire year. Some co-teachers end up working full time and split the week between two
classes. This means the co-teacher has to plan with two teachers and learn the organizational
structure of two different classrooms. Further study should be conducted on how co-teaching
impacts student achievement, teacher self-efficacy, and co-teaching longevity.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Implementing the PLC coaching model was expensive and time consuming. The coach
requires 0.5 release time, which means a part time teacher must be hired to co-teach. Additional
expenses derive from the need for PD. Further study should be conducted on the cost analysis of
adopting a program like the PLC coaching model. Other schools who may want to implement a
similar model may need to prioritize their spending differently in order to implement and sustain
a PLC coaching model. Schools would have to choose to invest in teacher leader release time
and consider the necessary role co-teaching will play (Bierly et al., 2015).

149

Successful Scaling of the PLC Coaching Model
ACS’s fifth desired outcome, of implementing the PLC coaching model, was to develop
recommendations regarding which approaches may be best suited to implement to scale in the
future. Kraft and Blazar (2018) found that it was difficult to maintain program fidelity when
programs became too large. They discovered that the average effectiveness of the coaching
program declines as the number of teachers involved increases. They saw similar patterns when
they tested for evidence of potential scale-up implementation. Some of the significant challenges
discovered, during the scale-up process, were finding enough expert coaches, keeping programs
cost effective, maintaining program personalization, and teacher’s willingness to actively engage
(Kraft & Blazar, 2018). Further study should be conducted on how to successfully scale the
implementation of the PLC coaching model. This is important because research has shown that
the pace and scale of an initiative cannot exceed employees’ capacity to handle it (Bird et al.,
2016; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Nelson & Dunsmore, 2018). ACS is currently conducting several
curriculum and department reviews. They are also in the middle of adopting a new school-wide
math curriculum and actively engaged in PD centered around the 2027 Strategic Plan and
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to Bird et al. (2016), what might seem
manageable to administration can feel very different to someone on the front line being asked to
engage with several initiatives at the same time. This should also be considered when looking at
the pace and scale of implementing the PLC coaching model school wide.
Conclusion
The implementation of the PLC coaching model aimed to empower leaders with the time
and authority to help ACS deliver on their most important objectives: better teaching and
learning. To reach this goal ACS provided more opportunities for teachers to learn from each

150

other and receive just-in-time feedback on their classroom practices, from the PLC coach. This
study sought to understand how ACS went about implementing the PLC coaching model and to
gather teachers’ perceptions of the promising practices and limitations related to the
implementation. The study can help other organizations understand how to implement similar
models with quality. The study also proposes a framework that can be used by educators in other
settings to examine quality implementation.
The review of literature that encompasses the PLC coaching construct confirmed that
receiving thoughtful and trusted feedback, and then having a chance to reflect, adjust, and
practice, on a regular basis, is an effective way to grow as a teacher (Aspen, 2014; Bierly et al.,
2015). The data also illustrates that implementing this type of coaching model positively impacts
student learning and organizational culture (Aspen, 2014; Bierly et al., 2015).
Successful implementation of the PLC coaching model required careful planning and
alignment across teams and initiatives (Aspen, 2014). Lyon (n.d.) noted that in most cases it
takes 2-3 years or more to fully implement a program or model. Lyon (n.d.) and Durlak and
DuPre (2008) encouraged administration and others involved in the implementation process to
avoid drawing conclusions about a program until multiple years have passed. This is especially
important, in the field of education, as Earl et al. (2016) notes that changes to teaching have been
slower in implementation than other fields. The PLC coaching construct, the culture of ACS, and
the ways the PLC coaches support their teams and teachers will continue to adapt and evolve
over time.
According to Durlak and DuPre (2008) positive implementation results can be obtained
with levels of 60% and that few studies have attained levels greater than 80%. As an institution,
it has been found that ACS met their desired outcomes and implemented the PLC coaching

151

model with fidelity. Implementing this type of coaching model positively impacted student
learning and organizational culture (Aspen, 2014; Bierly et al., 2015; ACS, 2021a).
Understanding the barriers that are specific to the implementation of the PLC coaching model
and how practices can be improved upon, are crucial to reaching the 2027 Strategic Plan of
excellence. Despite the limitations of the model, teachers and coaches felt optimistic about the
PLC coaching model and the direction ACS is heading. Further research is needed to assess to
what degree the implementation of the PLC coaching model impacted instruction and improved
student learning.

152

References
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Aguilar, E. (2019). You can’t have a coaching culture without a structure. Educational
Leadership, 77(3), 22–28.
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2
teacher education. Science Direct System, 5(2), 192–207.
Albers, B., & Pattuwage, L. (2017). Implementation in education: Findings from a scoping
review. Evidence for Learning.
American Community School (2020). ACS WASC self-study report 2020. American Community
School. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rzPhh7j998i8dWyGcQJoZ_VMn-
OB7eIs4HMUV588IXA/edit?usp=sharing
American Community School (2021a, January 15). ACS eNews: PLC coaching prototype.
https://www.sas.edu.sg/about-us/superintendent/messages/posts/~board/superintendents-
message/post/plc-coach-prototype
American Community School (2021b, January 15). ACS eNews: PLC coaching rational.
https://www.sas.edu.sg/uploaded/SAS/Learning_at_SAS/CA/Professional_Learning_Co
mmunity_Coaches.pdf
American Community School (2021c). PLC coach prototype final: Professional learning
community coaches [White paper]. American Community School.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EiWMfCnqABCVkkGrjq3tdplKjIoT8WXqC4t5Mi
Lrh10/edit

153

American Community School (2021d). How will we achieve excellence: Increase teacher
coaching-excellence #3. American Community School. https://www.sas.edu.sg/about-
us/strategic-direction/how-will-we-achieve-excellence
American Community School (2021e). ACS2027: ACS strategic plan. American Community
School. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qsW88Rm8jysUN1-
uQnxUWMz4BMVexzU-yy4R_hPFSSY/edit
American Community School (2021f). Draft leadership appraisal form [White paper]. American
Community School.
American Community School (2022a). PLC coach onboarding and support plan [White paper].
American Community School.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MDw1cdQWEZN5iBNbkoqZQDTQrMn1k04D5G
CRnlqVkmI/edit?usp=sharing
American Community School (2022b, April 12). PLC coach training: Focus on coach
[PowerPoint slides]. American Community School.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kDUXL6RybXgH-
iSFWACjSTKKCKkTWBjVMbzb9lqh83M/edit#slide=id.g51817854fe_0_2413
American Community School (2022c, May 24) PLC coach training: Celebrate and calibrate
[PowerPoint slides]. American Community School.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1a9Z-TNS4-
z4HVOT0GjJqBkin_RAXE1vx5wHBH7Yi4js/edit#slide=id.g51817854fe_0_2413
Aspen Institute (2014). Leading from the front of the classroom: A roadmap to teacher
leadership that works. Aspen Institute.

154

Bair, M. A. (2017). Faculty development through cognitive coaching. Journal of Faculty
Development, 31(3), 79–85.
Batt, E. G. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to
implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 997–1005.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.042
Berry, B., Byrd, A., & Wieder, A. (2013). Teacherpreneurs: Innovative teachers who lead but
don’t leave. Jossey-Bass.
Bierly, C., Doyle, B., & Smith, A. (2015). Transforming schools: How distributed leadership
can create more high-performing schools. Bain & Company, Inc.
Bird, A., Lichtenau, T., & Michels, D. (2016). The what, who and how of delivering results. Bain
and Company, Inc.
Burner, T. (2018). Why is educational change so difficult and how can we make it more
effective? Forskning Og Forandring, 1(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.23865/fof.v1.1081
Cafferty, C. (2019). Making job-sharing work. Headteacher Update.
https://doi.org/10.12968/htup.2019.1.14
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1989). The art of cognitive coaching: Supervision for intelligent
teaching. Training Syllabus, Institute for Intelligent Behavior.
Costa, A., & Garmston, B. (2015). Check your layout. Nonprofit Communications Report,
13(10), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/npcr.30237
Costa, A., & Garmston, B. (2016). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-directed leaders and
learners. Rowman & Littlefield.
Curtis, B. R. (2013). Finding a new way: Leveraging teacher leadership to meet unprecedented
demands. Aspen Institute.

155

Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Krieger, K., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Miller, S. (2017). Implementers’
perspectives on fidelity of implementation: “Teach every single part” or “be right with
the curriculum”? Health Promotion Practice, 18(2), 275–282.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839916672815
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Heath.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Eaker, R.E., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R.B. (2002). Getting started reculturing schools to become
professional learning communities. Solution Tree Press.
Earl, C. L., Hannay, L., Robertson, J., Timperley, H.., Earl, L., & Hannay, L. (2016). Leadership
and learning educators as knowledge leaders. SAGE Publications, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288931.n14
Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2015). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research.
In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A handbook of research methods for clinical and health
psychology (pp. 147-160 ). Oxford University
Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198527565.001.0001
Furtado, L., & Anderson, D. (2012). The reflective teacher leader: An action research model.
Journal of School Leadership, 22(May 2021), 531–568.

156

Garmston, R., Linder, C., & Whitaker, J. (1993). Reflections of cognitive coaching. Educational
Leadership, 51(2), 57–61.
Garmston, R. (2008). Raising the level of conversation by using paraphrasing as a listening skill.
Collaborative Culture, 29(2), 53–54.
Göker, S. D. (2020). Cognitive coaching: a powerful supervisory tool to increase teacher sense of
efficacy and shape teacher identity. Teacher Development, 24(4), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1791241
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of
innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The
Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.
Hawk, J. L. (2020). Application of instructional coaching models-lit review. Curriculum and
Instruction Commons.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2017). The practice of qualitative research: Engaging students in the
research process (3
rd
ed.). SAGE publication, Inc.
Houk, L.M., (2010). Demonstrating teaching in a lab classroom. ASCD, 67(June 2010), 9.
Hunzicker, J. (2017). From teacher to teacher leader: A conceptual model. International Journal
of Teacher Leadership, 8(2), 1–27.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). The coaching of teaching in educational leadership-Empirical.
Education Digest, 10(October 1983), 4–8.

157

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. In B. Joyce &
B. Showers (Eds.), Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs for learning (pp. 1–
5). National College for School Leadership.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (2009). What can we do about teacher resistance? Phi Delta Kappa International, Inc.
Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(October 2011), 18–22.
Kraft, M., & Blazar, D. (2018). Taking teacher coaching to scale: Can personalized training
become standard practice? Education Next, 18(4), 68–74.
Lochmiller, C.R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Locke, L., Silverman, S., & Spirduso, S. (2010). Reading and understanding research (3
rd
ed.).
SAGE Publication, Inc.
Lyon, A. R. (n.d.). Implementation science and practice in the education sector. Project Aware.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://education.uw.edu/sites/default/files/Implementation Science Issue Brief
072617.pdf
Mallory, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led fosters change. EDge Phi Delta Kappa
International, 6(3), 1–20.
Margolis, J., & Huggins, K. S. (2012). Distributed but undefined: New teacher leader roles to
change schools. Journal of School Leadership, 22(5), 953–981.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.

158

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, D. C., Wandersman, A, & Durlak, J. A. (2012). The quality implementation framework:
A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480.
Meyers, D. C., Wandersman, A., Katz, J., Chien, V., Scaccia, J. P., & Wright, A. (2012).
Practical implementation science: Developing and piloting the quality implementation
tool. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 481–496.
McEwan-Adkins, E.K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591.n1
McGatha, M. (2008). Levels of engagement in establishing coaching relationships. Teacher
Development, 12(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530802038147
Milner, R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
Moche, R. (2000). Coaching teachers’ thinking. Journal of Jewish Education, 66(3), 19–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0021624000660304
Nelson, C., & Dunsmore, K.L. (2018). A leader's guide to building instructional capacity.
Literacy Organizational Capacity Initiative. NORC at the University of Chicago.
Neumerski, C.M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.

159

Odden, A., & Picus, L.O. (2020). The 2020 recalibration of Wyoming’s education resource block
grant model: Final report. Submitted to the Wyoming Legislature’s Select Committee on
School. Finance Recalibration, December 1, 2020 pp. 103–107.
http://picusodden.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Wyoming-EB-Adequacy-Study-
2020.pdf
Riveros, A., Newton, P., & da Costa, J. (2013). From teachers to teacher-leaders: A case study.
International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 4(1), 1–15.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/493a/0f763c8b20a0bc6a4182a3a91bbb00f62fac.pdf
Robertson, J., & Timperley, S. (2011). Leadership and learning leading teachers’ professional
learning. SAGE Publications, Inc. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288931.n11
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Sailors, M., & Shanklin, N. L. (2010). Growing evidence to support coaching in literacy and
mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 1–6.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Using Microsoft
Excel. (4
th
ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Scott, K. (2019). Radical candor: Be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity. St. Martin’s
Press.
Star City Schools (n.d.). TC operation guide. Star City Schools. Retrieved September 11, 2021,
from https://teacherleader.dpsk12.org/tlc-operations-guide/
Star City Schools (2018a, May 16). SCS celebrates five years of teacher leadership and
collaboration. Star City Schools. Retrieved September 11, 2021, from
https://www.dpsk12.org/dps-celebrates-five-years-of-teacher-leadership-and-
collaboration/

160

Star City Schools (2018b). Using distributive leadership to transform schools [White paper]. Star
City Schools. http://holdsworthcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Using-
Distributive-Leadership-to-Transform-Schools_-FINAL_WEB.pdf
Star City Schools (2019). Star’s next journey: Investing in teachers. A+ Colorado.
https://apluscolorado.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/AColorado_InvestinginTeachers.pdf
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as a qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and social sciences (4th ed.). Teacher College Press.
Sider, S. (2019). Peer coaching in a school in Cairo, Egypt: Implementation, barriers, and
pathways to effective adoption. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education, 8(1), 37–51.
Slater, C. L., & Simmons, D. L. (2016). The design and implementation of a peer coaching
program. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 67–76.
Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives.
Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235–252.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021981622041
Williamson, S., Cooper, R., & Baird, M. (2015). Job-sharing among teachers: Positive, negative
(and unintended) consequences. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 26(3), 448–
464. http://doi.org/10.1177/1035304615595740

161

Appendix A: Informed Consent Study Information Sheet for Research
Implementation of the PLC Coaching Model at American Community School: You are
invited to participate in a research study conducted by Amy Wood, principal investigator, and
Dr. Lawrence Picus, faculty advisor, at the University of Southern California because you have
been involved in the implementation of the PLC coaching model at the American Community
School (ACS). Your participation in this study 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.
Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to examine the promising practices and
limitations of the PLC coaching model so that ACS can effectively and successfully implement
the PLC coaching model schoolwide.
Participant Involvement: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate
in a 60 to 90 minute interview. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. Any
information I obtain from the interview will be used for research purposes only. All participants
will remain anonymous. Information gathered may be used in my reporting.
Potential Risks and Discomforts: There are no anticipated risks for you in participating in this
study.
Potential Benefits to Participants and/or to Society: Findings from this study will guide how
distributed leadership is used to build systems to support the PLC coach, including creating time
and providing training so teacher leaders can more effectively lead their teams and coach team
leaders. The findings will bring more of a focus on the best ways to provide feedback and
coaching to educators to allow them to learn and grow in their professional practice and work
more effectively in teams. Implementation tools for monitoring and reflecting will be established

162

to determine if what is being tried is successful and should be continued or modified. This study
may also have implications on achievement of the Strategic Plan, future prototype
implementation, and teacher recruitment and retention. A research and development process,
centered on quality implementation, will be created and might be further utilized to explore new
and innovative practices and approaches. This study may further provide knowledge on the
infrastructures needed to create, implement, and sustain other prototypes. On a more global
scale, the findings shared through this study may offer guidance to other schools as they search
for ways to prototype and implement a similar model that asks teachers leaders to focus on both
leading and coaching the members of their teams, individually and collectively within PLCs.
More specifically, by examining the promising practices and limitations of the PLC coaching
model, a better understanding of the necessary infrastructure, skills, and motivation, to achieve
fidelity, will be provided to other institutions. In turn, it will stress the importance of high-quality
implementation and supports that are needed in order to ensure the success of any pilot model.
Confidentiality: We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law.
However, if we are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about
you. 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.
The data will be stored in passcode-protected devices. The audio recording will only be used for
the purpose of this study. Upon successful completion of the dissertation the audio recordings
will be destroyed.

163

The interview discussion will be read and highlighted for (a) notes and memos, (b) recurring
phrases, (c) key phrases or words, and (d) key phrases and words that align with literature. Each
unit of the highlighted descriptive data will be copied and pasted into a spreadsheet under the
column labelled as key phrases or chunks, 1 unit of descriptive data per row. Data analysis of the
units of descriptive data generated categories and eventually the emergence of key themes.
Throughout the data analysis process, the Research Questions and literature will frame the
identification of units of descriptive data that will be selected, highlighted and coded. This
process will be repeated for all interview discussion transcripts for emerging categories and
themes.
Investigator Contact Information: If you have any questions or concerns about the research,
please feel free to contact the following:
Lead investigator: Amy Wood: adwood@sas.edu.sg
Committee Chair: Dr. Lawrence Picus: lpicus@rossier.usc.edu
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.
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.

______________________ ___________________________ ___________________
Name of Participant Signature of Participant Date

164

Appendix B: PLC Coach Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate you taking the time to
answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take about 40
minutes, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the overview for which was
provided to you in the Study Information Sheet, and answer any questions you might have about
participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study on the
implementation of the PLC coaching model. I am particularly interested in understanding your
perceptions of what worked well and what might be improved upon before the model is
implanted school wide. I am talking to multiple PLC 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 will not be evaluative. I will not be making any
judgments on how you are performing as a PLC coach/teacher. My goal is to understand your
perspective.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I provided to you previously, this interview is
confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. I will not share them with other teachers, the principal, or the district. The data for
this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say as
direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.

165

Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a
recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is
solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
PLC Coach Questions
Background: I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. First, tell me about your background in education.
a. How did you develop an interested in the field of education?
b. How long have you worked in this field?
c. How long have you worked at ACS?
d. What brought you to ACS?
e. What roles or positions have you held?
2. Tell me about your prior experience coaching, if any at all.
a. What type of educational coaching have you done?
b. How long were you in that position?
c. How did you feel about that experience?
Prototype: I’d like to start by asking you about the PLC coaching prototype.
3. What factors contributed to your willingness to protype the PLC coaching model?
a. What were your expectations prior to involvement in this prototype?
4. Describe your experience prototyping the PLC coaching model?
a. How have you balanced the roles of teacher, leader, and coach?
b. How has this impacted your class? Your co-teacher?

166

c. How did teachers react to you, as a fellow teacher and their PLC leader, when
you started coaching them?
5. What lessons did you learn by prototyping the PLC coaching model, if any?
a. What were some benefits?
b. What were some of the needs?
6. How involved has your “Head of Program” been in the prototyping of the model?
a. How many times did your “Head” meet with you? Your team?
b. Can you give an example of a time your “Head” was involved?
c. Are there times when you feel your “Head” could have been more involved?
Impact: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about the impact of the PLC coaching
model.
7. Give an example of a time you saw teachers change their practice as a result of
cognitive coaching, if any at all?
a. What did they (the teacher) learn from it?
b. What did you learn from it?
8. Tell me about a time your coaching strengthened and accelerated your PLC work, if
any at all.
a. How did it bridge teacher collaboration to classroom practices?
b. How did it bridge teacher learning to classroom practices?
Preparedness: Now I’d like to ask you some questions about program training.
9. Describe the training you received that was centered around your new role as PLC
coach.
a. Do you feel your training prepared you for your new position?

167

b. What other training might have been beneficial?
School Wide Implementation: Now I am going to ask you a few questions about
implementing the PLC coaching prototype school wide.
10. Some teachers might say that ACS moved forward with the implementation of the
PLC coaching model too quickly. How might you respond to this?
a. What might be done to foster community buy-in?
11. What does ACS need to modify, in regards to the PLC coaching model, to make it a
better fit for ACS?
a. If you could create the ideal PLC coaching model, what would it look like?
Other Insight: I have one more question to ask.
12. What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the
implementation of the PLC coaching prototype that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I
find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is email ok? Again, thank you
for participating in my study.

168

Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate you taking the time to
answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take about 40
minutes, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the overview for which was
provided to you in the Study Information Sheet, and answer any questions you might have about
participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study on the
implementation of the PLC coaching model. I am particularly interested in understanding your
perceptions of what worked well and what might be improved upon before the model is
implanted school wide. I am talking to multiple PLC 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 will not be evaluative. I will not be making any
judgments on how you are performing as a teacher. My goal is to understand your perspective.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I provided to you previously, this interview is
confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. I will not share them with other teachers, the principal, or the district. The data for
this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say as
direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a
recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is

169

solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
Teacher Questions
Background: I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. First, tell me about your background in education.
a. How did you develop an interest in the field of education?
b. How long have you worked in this field?
c. How long have you worked at ACS?
d. What brought you to ACS?
e. What roles or positions have you held?
2. Tell me about your prior experience being coached outside of this model, if any at all.
a. What type of coaching did you receive?
b. How often did you receive coaching?
c. What are the three things that you found most helpful, if any at all?
d. What are three things you felt like you needed or wanted from this experience
but feel that you didn’t receive?
Prototype: I’d like to start by asking you about the PLC coaching prototype.
3. What factors contributed to your willingness to protype the PLC coaching model?
a. What were your expectations prior to involvement in this prototype?
4. Describe your experience prototyping the PLC coaching model?
a. How often did you receive coaching?
b. What subject/topic did you receive coaching in?
c. How did it feel being coached by a fellow teacher vs. a full time coach?

170

d. What are the three things that you found most helpful, if any at all?
e. What are three things you felt like you needed or wanted from this experience
but feel that you didn’t receive?
5. On a scale of 1–5, with one being the lowest and five being the highest, rate your
level of enthusiasm.
a. Prior to implementation of the PLC coaching model.
b. Right now, as you participate in the prototyping of the PLC coaching model.
6. How involved has your “Head of Program” been in the prototyping of the model?
a. How many times did your “Head” meet with you? Your team?
b. Can you give an example of a time your “Head” was involved?
c. Are there times when you feel your “Head” could have been more involved?
Impact: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about the impact of the PLC coaching
model.
7. What lessons did you learn by prototyping the PLC coaching model, if any?
a. What were some benefits?
b. What were some of the needs?
8. Tell me about a time coaching strengthened and accelerated your PLC work, if any at
all.
a. How did it bridge teacher collaboration to classroom practices?
b. How did it bridge teacher learning to classroom practices?
Preparedness: Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the preparedness of your
PLC coach.

171

9. Describe how prepared you feel your PLC coach was to take on the PLC coaching
construct of Leader, Teacher, and Coach.
a. Do you feel they received proper training?
b. What other training might have been beneficial?
School Wide Implementation: Now I am going to ask you a few questions about
implementing the PLC coaching prototype school wide.
10. Some teachers might say that ACS moved forward with the implementation of the
PLC coaching model too quickly. How might you respond to this?
a. What might be done to foster community buy-in?
11. What does ACS need to modify, in regards to the PLC coaching model, to make it a
better fit for ACS?
a. If you could create the ideal PLC coaching model, what would it look like?
Other Insight: I have one more question to ask.
12. What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about the
implementation of the PLC coaching prototype that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I
find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, is email ok? Again, thank you
for participating in my study.

172

Appendix D: Coach Survey on the PLC Coaching Model
You were selected to take this survey based on your involvement in the prototyping of
the PLC coaching model. I am a student at University of Southern California and am conducting
a study on the implementation of the PLC coaching model. I am particularly interested in
understanding your perceptions of what worked well and what might be improved upon before
the model is implemented school wide. This survey is strictly confidential and your participation
is voluntary. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. I will not share them with other teachers, the principal, or the district. The data for
this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say as
direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. This survey will
take 10–15 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions as truthfully and accurately as
possible. Thank you for your participation.
Survey Questions
1. Which grade level/department are you currently working in?
o Chinese immersion
o Chinese language
o elementary music
o elementary Spanish
o Grade 2
o middle school math
o middle school interdisciplinary

173

o high school learning support
o high school science
2. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
o 0–4 years
o 5–9 years
o 10–14 years
o 15–19 years
o 20 or more years
3. How beneficial was the PLC coach training you received prior to prototyping the
PLC coaching model?
o I did not receive training
o not at all beneficial
o somewhat beneficial
o beneficial
o very beneficial
4. My team was enthusiastic to participate in the prototype of the PLC coaching model?
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o somewhat disagree
o somewhat agree
o agree
o strongly agree

174

5. Regarding your PLC coaching position, how often have you received support from
the chief academic officer?
o I have not received support
o 1 time per month
o 2–3 times per month
o 4–5 times per month
o more than 6 times per month
6. Regarding your PLC coaching position, how often have you received support from
your principal?
o I have not received support
o 1 time per month
o 2–3 times per month
o 4–5 times per month
o more than 6 times per month
7. In your new PLC coaching role, how prepared do you feel as a
Teacher?
o not at all prepared
o slightly prepared
o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
Leader?
o not at all prepared

175

o slightly prepared
o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
Coach?
o not at all prepared
o slightly prepared
o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
8. To what extent does the coaching you provide connect learning to classroom
practices?
o not at all
o very little
o somewhat
o to a great extent
9. Overall, to what extent was the PLC coaching prototype implemented effectively?
o not at all
o very little
o somewhat
o to a great extent
10. Name three things that are going well. Write your comments below.
11. Name three things you would change. Write your comments below.

176

12. What other insight would you like to share about the implementation of the PLC
coaching prototype? Write your comments below.
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. I appreciate your honest feedback
and thoughtful suggestions. Your answers and identity will be kept confidential. Information
gained will be used to analyze the PLC coaching prototype and hopefully inform future
implementation and practice. If you have any questions or would like to share your experience in
person, please contact me at adwood@sas.edu.sg

177

Appendix E: Teacher Survey on the PLC Coaching Model
You were selected to take this survey based on your involvement in the prototyping of
the PLC coaching model. I am a student at University of Southern California and am conducting
a study on the implementation of the PLC coaching model. I am particularly interested in
understanding your perceptions of what worked well and what might be improved upon before
the model is implemented school wide. This survey is strictly confidential and your participation
is voluntary. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the
research team. I will not share them with other teachers, the principal, or the district. The data for
this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say as
direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested. This survey will
take 10–15 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions as truthfully and accurately as
possible. Thank you for your participation.
Survey Questions
1. Which grade level/department are you currently working in?
o Chinese immersion
o Chinese language
o elementary music
o elementary Spanish
o Grade 2
o middle school math
o middle school interdisciplinary

178

o high school learning support
o high school science
2. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
o 0–4 years
o 5–9 years
o 10–14 years
o 15–19 years
o 20 or more years
3. How beneficial was the PLC coach training you received prior to prototyping the
PLC coaching model?
o I did not receive training
o not at all beneficial
o somewhat beneficial
o beneficial
o very beneficial
4. My team was enthusiastic to participate in the prototype of the PLC coaching model?
o strongly disagree
o disagree
o somewhat disagree
o somewhat agree
o agree
o strongly agree
5. I trust my PLC coach.

179

o strongly disagree
o disagree
o somewhat disagree
o somewhat agree
o agree
o strongly agree
6. How often do you receive support from your PLC coach while acting in their
coaching capacity?
o I have not received coaching
o 1 time per month
o 2–3 times per month
o 4–5 times per month
o more than 6 times per month
7. How prepared do you feel your PLC coach is as a
Teacher?
o not at all prepared
o slightly prepared
o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
Leader?
o not at all prepared
o slightly prepared

180

o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
Coach?
o not at all prepared
o slightly prepared
o somewhat prepared
o moderately prepared
o very prepared
8. To what extent did the coaching you receive connect learning to classroom practices?
o not at all
o very little
o somewhat
o to a great extent
9. Overall, to what extent was the PLC coaching prototype implemented effectively?
o not at all
o very little
o somewhat
o to a great extent
10. Name three things that are going well. Write your comments below.
11. Name three things you would change. Write your comments below.
12. What other insight would you like to share about the implementation of the PLC
coaching prototype? Write your comments below.

181

Closing
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. I appreciate your honest feedback
and thoughtful suggestions. Your answers and identity will be kept confidential. Information
gained will be used to analyze the PLC coaching prototype and hopefully inform future
implementation and practice. If you have any questions or would like to share your experience in
person, please contact me at adwood@sas.edu.sg.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to (a) understand how American Community School (ACS), an independent private school, implemented the professional learning community (PLC) coaching model; (b) investigate promising practices utilized by the PLC coaches; and (c) understand limitations confronted by PLC coaches and teachers. Guided by the quality implementation framework, designed by Meyers, Wandersman, Katz, et al. (2012), this study gathered data through surveys, semi-structured interviews with teachers and coaches, and document analysis. The teacher coach model, implemented by Star City Schools, was also used as a teacher leadership model. Findings from this study revealed several promising practices and limitations. With a well-crafted design, the promising practices included a model that provided initial and ongoing coach training, implementation and structural flexibility, and the opportunity to participate in high-quality collaboration and receive just in time feedback. This was accomplished by piloting and refining the model and gathering feedback from stakeholders to improve future application. The limitations included a need for greater clarity on the PLC coaching construct, training for teachers, workload and time management for coaches, establishing teacher buy-in, and refining the PLC coach selection process. This study highlights areas for further consideration and growth as ACS works towards the 2027 strategic goals of excellence. The study also proposes a framework that can be used by educators in other settings to examine quality implementation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Perceptions of early childhood educators on how reflective supervision influences instructional effectiveness and teacher wellbeing

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices

PDF

Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Instructional coaching: disrupting traditional math practices through inquiry and action research

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Using technology to drive high academic achievement

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

Understanding conditions for executive coaching success from the leader's point of view

PDF

Principal perceptions of educational leader evaluation practices in Los Angeles County

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

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...

Asset Metadata

Creator Wood, Amy Diane (author)

Core Title Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 10/10/2022

Defense Date 10/01/2022

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

Tag accountability,ambiguity,Balance,buy-in,capacity building,capcity,Chinese immersion,Clarity,coach,coach as evaluator,coached,Coaching,coaching construct,coaching culture,coaching cycle,cognitive coaching,collaboration,collaborative,Compliance,cost-benefit,Credibility,culture,culture of coaching,cycle,distributed leadership,equity,evaluator,expectations,feedback,feedback mechanisms,feedback systems,Fidelity,flexibility,flexible,goal setting,impact,impactful,implementation,instruction,job sharing,job-sharing,lab classroom,lead,leadership,leadership framework,limitations,local hires,mistakes,Model,OAI-PMH Harvest,participation,PD,peer-to-peer coaching,PLC,PLC coach,PLC coach construct,Principal,process evaluation,professional development,professional learning communities,promising practices,prototype,qualifications,quality,quality implementation,quality implementation framework,ratio,ready culture,reflective,reflective practices,Relationships,release time,scaling,schedule,selection process,structures,support,teacher,teacher buy-in,teacher leader,time management,Training,transparency,Trust,well crafted,well crafted design,workload,World Language

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence Oscar (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email adwood@sas.edu.sg,amy.adw@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112114345

Unique identifier UC112114345

Identifier etd-WoodAmyDia-11263.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WoodAmyDia-11263

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Wood, Amy Diane

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221017-usctheses-batch-986 (), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu