University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

(USC Thesis Other)

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Brick by Brick:
Exploring the Influential Factors on the Capacity Building of Instructional Coaches
by
Alia Ashley

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

August 2021

© Copyright by Alia Ashley 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Alia Ashley certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Frances Kellar
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Lynn Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Instructional coaching is a necessary practice for building the capacity of teachers and their
instructional practice, resulting in increased student achievement. The purpose of this qualitative
study was to learn more about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support factors that
influence the capacity of instructional coaches to tailor coaching from their perspectives. The
researcher purposefully selected 17 of the approximately 60 coaches of a particular company’s
national coaching staff; 13 coaches participated in this study. The literature provided the
sampling criteria used in this study: (a) coaching experience, (b) teaching experience, and (c)
formal coaching training. The collection of data included a one-hour, semi-structured video
conferenced interview and a review of personal documents called coaching logs. The logs were
primary sources of data that chronicled the coaches’ work with teachers and served as evidence
of the quality of the coaches’ work. The researcher analyzed and coded the collected qualitative
data to identify recommended solutions that will build the capacity of the company’s coaching
staff. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of coaches related to their capacity to tailor
coaching services to the unique context of each school?
2. What are the motivation assets and needs of coaches related to their capacity to tailor
coaching services to the unique context of each school?
3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting the coaches and their
capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?

Keywords: instructional coaching, capacity building, professional development

v
Dedication
To my rock, my family. My husband, Craig, you have always encouraged and supported me
every day and in every way, but especially during this journey. You listened to me when I
learned something new, stayed up with me when I struggled, and reviewed my writing. You were
even my personal IT guy!

To my twin sister, Falayon, you have always supported me and continue to amaze me with your
wisdom and strength.

To my children, Sean and Lauren, your presence gives me such joy and light. I love you so much
and I feel so blessed to have you in my life.

To every child whose life circumstances made them unseen and unheard. Please know that I see
you, I hear you, and I declare to you that everything is possible!

vi
Acknowledgments
I give all honor to God, the author and finisher of my faith. I could not have completed
this journey without faith, prayer, grace, and the support of many.
First, I want to thank my family, Craig, Sean, and Lauren, for their sacrifice of time and
family moments. They are my strongest support network, making my dream of earning my
doctorate a reality. I want to thank my grandmother and mother who instilled in me the
importance of education, community, and family.
Thank you to The Breakfast Club, the group of classmates who took Saturday morning
classes with me throughout this program. I have grown because of your candor, your
perspectives, and your warmth. You enriched this experience beyond my expectations.
I want to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Malloy, whose love of teaching made this
journey more than I could have imagined. I learned so much from our collaboration - the
complexities of academic writing, who I am as a learner and a scholar, how my physical and
emotional well-being impact my work, and when to take a break. Thank you for your patience
and grace when sharing your feedback. I truly appreciate our time together. Additionally, I want
to thank my defense committee, Dr. Stowe and Dr, Kellar for their insight and experience. Thank
you for being honest because it demonstrated your respect for me and my work.
To Rebekah Smith, thank you for sharing your superpowers. Your point of view,
experience, collaboration, and willingness to support my work has literally made this dissertation
possible. I do not know how I would have completed this work without your input and access.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of Study .................................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 7
The Evolution of Coaching ................................................................................................. 7
Building the Capacity of Instructional Coaches ............................................................... 11
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 29
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 29
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 29
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 30
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 30
Data Instrumentation ......................................................................................................... 31
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 32

viii
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 33
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 34
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 35
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 37
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 37
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 37
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 51
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 63
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................... 77
Findings............................................................................................................................. 77
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 83
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................... 92
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 99
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 100
References ................................................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A: Document Verification Rubric .............................................................................. 108
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 109

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Logic Model: Focus Area Questions, Indicators and Technical Assistance 98
Appendix A: Document Verification Rubric 108

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 27
Figure 2: Activities Approach Logic Model 95

1
Chapter One: Overview of Study
Instructional coaching, a type of teacher professional development (PD), has been a
widely accepted intervention for improving the instructional practice of Kindergarten through
12
th
grade (K-12) teachers in the United States (Blazar & Kraft, 2015; Desimone, 2009; Neufeld
& Roper, 2003). It has gained popularity because it offers teachers a job-embedded, collaborative
PD option that helps them transfer their knowledge to their instructional practice (Calo et al.,
2015). Knight and van Nieuwerburgh (2012) referred to coaching as a “powerful strategy for
improving how learning occurs” (p. 1). However, studies regarding the impact of coaching on
teachers’ instructional practice have not consistently found that coaching improves teaching
(Desimone & Pak, 2017; Jacob & McGovern, 2015). The research has uncovered that
instructional coaching varies in its effectiveness due to the knowledge and motivation of coaches
as well as the organizational support available for coaching (Blamey et al., 2008; Gallucci et al.,
2010; L’ Allier et al., 2010; Marsh et al., 2008; Schen et al., 2005).
Context and Background of the Problem
The Coaching Company (TCC, a pseudonym) is a third-party supplemental education
services vendor that provides services, like instructional coaching, to K-12
th
schools in the
United States. According to Leader C (a pseudonym), a leader within TCC, the majority of TCC
school clients receive federal funding to serve their students who qualify for supplemental
academic services based on their academic and socioeconomic needs. The primary purpose of
the funding has been to help students who qualify for these services meet their academic
expectations. Subsequently, the funding has also paid for the teachers’ instructional coaching to
address their students’ diverse learning needs.

2
According to Leader A (a pseudonym), another TCC leader, TCC started providing
instructional coaching based on requests from its school clients in 2007. Instructional coaching
begins with TCC’s coaching leaders assigning coaches to schools based on their years of
coaching experience, expertise in the school’s identified area(s) of need, and their capacity to
build trusting relationships with teachers and leaders. Then, the coach examines existing school
data or assesses the school to determine its needs and ascertain its coaching readiness. Next,
based on the needs assessment data, coaching goals are established, and coaching begins. Typical
coaching strategies include modeling how to differentiate concepts, instruction, and assessments
in a teacher’s classroom to address students’ needs. Concurrently, coaches assess and adjust their
coaching based on each school’s context, the teachers’ needs, and any feedback the coaches
receive. Additionally, throughout the coaching assignment, the school’s leaders, coaches, and
coaching leaders evaluate the progress of the coaching to meet the school’s goals. Finally,
coaching is re-evaluated at the end of the coaching assignment to measure its impact. The
duration of coaching assignments varies from as few as three days to as much as multiple years.
According to Leader A, from the inception of TCC’s coaching services, it has hired
coaches with leadership experience, instructional expertise, and professional references to ensure
its coaches can meet the needs of each school they serve. For example, the company’s inaugural
group of coaches consisted of experienced teachers and leaders, that is, retired master teachers,
school administrators, and reading specialists. At that time, the company determined that coaches
with these credentials required little training and were ready to provide coaching once hired.
However, seven years after the coaching program began, new and existing coaches started
requesting coaching training.

3
According to Leader A, TCC started hosting an annual professional development
conference for a select group of coaches in response to the coaches’ requests. At the conference,
the coaches network and learn about the latest PD services TCC offers. Leader B (a pseudonym),
another leader within TCC, shared that the conference feedback has indicated that the conference
is informative. However, the conference attendees have also stated that they would like more
ongoing professional development focused on applying the knowledge gained during the
conference or getting advice on addressing their challenges during their coaching assignments.
Leader A said that in response to this feedback, TCC created an interactive web-based platform
that has provided information about TCC’s PD workshops, its coaching model, and other PD
strategies and tools. However, TCC has yet to provide the coaches with opportunities to apply
their knowledge or a formal coaching training program.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
According to Leader B, in 2018, TCC’s coaching leadership brought together a select
group of instructional coaches to plan for future coaching opportunities and review existing data.
During this meeting, leaders reviewed end-of-year coaching data compiled by coaches. The data
included coaching implementation plans, coaching logs, and a narrative describing each school’s
context and its progress toward goal achievement. Overall, the data showed that coaching helped
some teachers improve their instructional practice, but it did not always meet the schools’ goals.
This meeting’s discussion sparked the idea for this study: to learn about TCC coaches’ capacity
to tailor coaching to the unique contexts and goals of each school they serve to strengthen the
impact of their coaching. The following questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to
tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?

4
2. What are the motivational assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to
tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting TCC coaches and their
capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
Importance of the Study
Coaching has been one of the primary avenues for systemic change within schools
(Fullan & Knight, 2011). Based on a meta-analysis of 60 studies, Kraft et al. (2018) concluded
that “on average, coaching improves the quality of teachers’ instruction and its effects on student
achievement by 0.49 standard deviations and 0.18 standard deviations, respectively” (p. 1).
According to Yoon et al. (2007), a considerable and sustained amount of teacher professional
development supported teachers’ ability to increase their students’ achievement by 21 percentile
points. Teachers who have not had coaching support have not been able to apply the requisite
knowledge and skills to bolster their instructional practices and thus increase student
achievement (Anderson et al., 2014; Desimone & Pak, 2017; Finkelstein, 2019; Joyce &
Showers, 1981; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012; Lowenhaupt et al., 2013; Neufeld & Roper,
2003; Poglinco, 2003).
According to Leader C, TCC has supported over 25,000 teachers and, subsequently, over
100,000 students annually. The fact that TCC touches tens of thousands of lives, coupled with
the data mentioned above that demonstrated the potential of coaching to improve teachers’
instructional practice, is evidence of the importance of this study. Furthermore, Leader B shared
TCC’s mission of providing education and behavioral health solutions that create better life
outcomes for children and their families, regardless of the learning obstacles and other

5
challenges they face. TCC’s mission ethically compels the company to provide the most
impactful services to uphold its mission and benefit the teachers and students it serves.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes (2008) provided a model for assessing performance as well as identifying
and resolving any factors that inhibit performance. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
performance is influenced by critical factors that fall into three areas: knowledge, motivation,
and organizational support (KMO). Using this KMO model was appropriate for this study
because the study sought to learn more about the various factors that influence the capacity of
coaches to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of each school. The analysis of qualitative
data—interviews and documents—helped to uncover the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support factors in this study.
Definition of Terms
• Professional development refers to any activity used to increase a participant’s
knowledge and skill (Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985).
• Instructional coaching is a form of professional development where an expert supports
individual, or a small group of, teachers within the classroom setting using a variety of
strategies, such as co-planning, modeling instructional strategies, and reflection, all to
build the teachers’ capacity over an extended time (Blazar & Kraft, 2015; Desimone &
Pak, 2017; Gallucci et al., 2010; Joyce & Showers, 1982; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh,
2012; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco et al., 2003).
• Building capacity refers to the effort of an organization or individual coaches toward
increasing the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of each school
they serve (Clark & Estes, 2008).

6
• Self-efficacy describes a person’s perception of their ability to exert control over the
outside influences on their lives to achieve their goals (Bandura, 1994).
• Causal attributions explain how a person perceives the cause of an experience
influencing their responses to those experiences (Weiner, 1985).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 provided the statement of the problem of practice, the significance of the
problem, the study’s purpose, and the study’s research questions. Chapter 2 provides an
overview of the literature regarding instructional coaching and includes the evolution of
coaching, an identification of the factors essential to building the capacity of instructional
coaches, how those factors influence the coaches’ capacity, and finally, an overview of the
conceptual framework guiding this study. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the methodological
approach for this study. Chapter 4 provides the findings from the study. Chapter 5 concludes the
dissertation with a discussion of the study’s findings, recommendations, and implications for
future research..

7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews the current literature regarding the influential factors on the capacity
building of instructional coaches. The first section explains the evolution of coaching, starting
with why coaching was necessary and continuing with how the practice and impact of coaching
contributed to teachers’ instructional practice, then ending with the evolving definition of
coaching. The following section identifies and discusses the factors essential to building the
capacity of instructional coaches and how those factors influence the coaches’ capacity. This
chapter ends with a review of Clark and Estes’ (2008) model, describing the relationship
between the KMO factors, their respective concepts found in the literature, and how the factors
influenced the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique context of each school they
served.
The Evolution of Coaching
The Rationale for Coaching: A Necessary Complement to PD
Coaching developed out of the need to support teachers as they learned and applied new
knowledge to their instructional practice. For the last 50 years, PD, in the form of lecture-style
workshops, has mainly focused on teachers acquiring knowledge to improve their instructional
practice (Choy et al., 2006). The changes in school accountability shed light on the inadequacies
of individual workshops. Little (1993) surmised that as political and social accountability grew
around student achievement, experts identified workshop-only professional development as
insufficient for meeting the increasingly rigorous demands of teaching (Choy et al., 2006).
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), the demand to improve teachers’ instructional
practice, which provides students with the necessary knowledge for college and careers,
prompted researchers to identify the effective features of teacher professional learning. The

8
features focused on (a) content knowledge, (b) active learning using adult learning theory, (c)
teacher collaboration, (d) the use of coaching and expert support, (e) models and modeling
effective practice, (f) time for feedback and reflection, and (g) frequent support over a sustained
time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
Although researchers identified effective features of teacher learning, professional
development designers did not incorporate them into PD (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Furthermore,
the traditional workshop format continued to be a widely accepted form of PD. Neufeld and
Roper (2003) asserted that coaching helped teachers transfer the knowledge gained from
conventional workshops. The researchers cautioned that coaching must complement workshops
because the workshops provided the knowledge used during coaching (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Based on the research surrounding the inadequacy of workshop-only PD, coaching emerged to
support the transfer of teachers’ knowledge to their instructional practice.
The Practice of Coaching: Supporting Adult Learners
Coaching not only responded to the need to support teachers’ transfer of knowledge to
their instructional practice, but it also made apparent the importance of how to support teachers
as they applied new knowledge. As early as the 1980s, teacher evaluations surfaced as a practical
PD tool for providing teachers feedback as they attempted to apply the knowledge gained from
workshops (Demonte, 2013). The researcher concluded that teacher evaluations were helpful
tools because they were an existing part of the school culture and intended to inform teachers
about their performance (Demonte, 2013). Hill and Herlihy (2011) also stated that teacher
evaluations could improve teacher practice by providing the teacher classroom observation data
on which they could reflect. The researchers concluded that high-quality feedback, based on
data, could help teachers become skilled and experienced (Hill & Herlihy, 2011).

9
Despite the intentions of teacher evaluations, the first attempts at using them failed
(Demonte, 2013). School leaders observed and assessed teachers’ practices without providing the
constructive feedback teachers needed to improve their practices (Demonte, 2013). Additionally,
Knight and van Nieuwerburgh (2012) found that principals approached teacher evaluations from
a deficit perspective, meaning principals observed teachers’ instruction and shared with the
teachers what was wrong with their instruction. The researchers also posited that the principals’
negative approach to teacher evaluations highlighted the teachers’ weaknesses (Knight & van
Nieuwerburgh, 2012). Also, the principals did not provide teachers with any direction to improve
their practices, straining the working relationship between teachers and the school leaders who
evaluated them. As a result, teachers became resistant to observations and evaluations. The
teachers’ negative experiences with evaluations provided an opening for coaching because of its
contrasting approach to teacher feedback. The practice of coaching involved treating coaches and
teachers as professional equals who exchanged knowledge and data to change teachers’
instruction practice (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012).
The Impact of Coaching
Peer coaching was the first formal model of job-embedded, practice-oriented teacher
coaching. It addressed teachers’ need to apply the new knowledge they acquired to their
instructional practice without the fear of being evaluated by their principals. Showers (1985)
learned that the teachers whom their peers coached tended to be more open to practicing new
instructional strategies because they felt less judged by peers than by principals. The more
practice and feedback teachers received, the more the teachers grew in their knowledge
(Showers, 1985).

10
Additionally, the peer coaching model required teachers’ consent before coaching began,
empowering teachers. Based on their findings, Rainville and Jones (2008) supported the
assertion that teachers who were in control of their coaching felt empowered to test new
strategies to improve instruction, without the fear of being evaluated while learning. Knight and
van Nieuwerburgh (2012) noted that partnership coaching, like peer coaching, prompted the
development of a common language and a culture of learning within schools because teachers
felt more comfortable sharing their ideas, knowledge, and strategies. According to Showers
(1985), the peer coaching model addressed two issues using traditional teacher evaluations as a
form of teacher learning. It addressed the lack of constructive feedback by promoting teacher
collaboration and the exchange of ideas. It also alleviated the negative impact of power and
positionality on the reception of feedback by establishing the coach and the teacher as colleagues
instead of superior and subordinate (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012; Lynch & Ferguson,
2010; Rainville & Jones, 2008). A drawback of teachers coaching teachers was the lack of
support, like time to collaborate to execute coaching with fidelity (Marsh et al., 2008).
The Definition of Coaching
Researchers decided coaching needed to be more clearly defined as the first coaching
models gained popularity (International Reading Association, 2006; Poglinco, 2003). As the
research about coaching has progressed, the definition has evolved as well. Poglinco (2003)
stated that “Coaching is a form of inquiry-based learning characterized by collaboration between
individual, or groups of, teachers and more accomplished peers” (p. 1).
In addition to the definition, the types of coaching strategies have helped describe it
(Poglinco, 2003). Such strategies have included modeled lessons that showed teachers how to
use instructional strategies with their students. Additionally, coaches have used strategies like

11
reflection to cause teachers to self-assess their instructional practices. Even coaches’ expertise
and coaching personas have helped describe coaching (Feger et al., 2004).
Building the Capacity of Instructional Coaches
A review of the relevant literature revealed several concepts related to coaches’ capacity,
aligning with the factors identified in Clark and Estes’ (2008) model: knowledge, motivation,
and organizational support (KMO). The concepts related to coaches’ knowledge included (a) an
understanding of instructional coaching models, (b) communicating with adult learners, (c)
building and managing trusting relationships, and (d) metacognition or reflection. The concepts
related to coaches’ motivation included (a) self-efficacy (SE), (b) mastery experiences, and (c)
causal attributions. The concepts related to organizational support for coaching included (a)
readiness for coaching; (b) a process for establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and goals for
coaching; (c) a process that supports coaching implementation; and (d) an assessment and
evaluation process to track and monitor coaching goals.
Knowledge
Clark and Estes’ (2008) described the knowledge workers needed to achieve their goals
as the information about how to they could achieve those goals. This section focuses on four
concepts: (a) an understanding of instructional coaching models, (b) communicating with adult
learners, (c) building and managing trusting relationships, and (d) metacognition or reflection. It
includes a detailed explanation of each knowledge concept and its relation to the capacity
building of instructional coaches.
Instructional Coaching Models
Bengo (2016) asserted that instructional coaches should understand various coaching
models, enabling them to choose a model that fits the context of the school and its teachers. The

12
researcher identified three main coaching models: (a) cognitive coaching, (b) content-area
coaching, and (c) instructional coaching. He stated that cognitive coaching was a model that
encouraged coaches to understand teachers’ thoughts and perceptions to influence their behavior
and, eventually, their practice. Coaches who used this model also led teachers to self-assess their
practices then set goals to measure their progress.
Next, Bengo described content-area coaching as a model that focused on each teacher’s
ability to address students’ content knowledge, for example, mathematics. Coaches who used
this model focused on the areas of child development, content knowledge, and how to blend both
areas to provide age-appropriate instruction for the students in the teacher’s class. With this
model, coaches developed the teacher’s understanding of content knowledge and how to teach
that knowledge in a way that caused students to learn, improving the teacher’s instructional
practice.
Lastly, Bengo explained that instructional coaching dealt explicitly with how students
learn. Instructional coaching included the use of strategies that addressed students’ diverse
learning needs, for example, students who speak English as a second language. This model
enabled coaches to help teachers assess their students’ prior knowledge and learning preferences,
improving teachers’ ability to meet their students' needs. The knowledge of various coaching
models built the coaches’ capacity to coach in multiple school contexts (Bengo, 2016).
Communicating With Adult Learners
According to Merriam (2008), adults learn best when (a) they direct their learning, (b)
their prior experience is the basis for learning activities, (c) the learning activities meaningfully
connect to their life situations, and (d) reflection and dialogue are a part of the learning activities.
The following research focused on how various types of communication aligned with adult

13
learners and helped differentiate coaching for diverse school contexts. Gibson (2006) determined
that coaches applied adult learning theory proficiently when they employed strategies that
recognized and honored teachers’ voices, offered suggestions instead of giving orders, and
encouraged teachers throughout the coaching process. The researcher discovered that the coaches
who used such strategies aligned themselves with the most effective communication strategies
for coaching adults (Gibson, 2006).
Ippolito (2010) discussed how coaches differentiated their communication using stances.
He defined stances as the personas and language coaches used when supporting teachers.
Experienced coaches learned that each stance, or a combination of stances, addressed a particular
temperament of teachers and a particular coaching persona (Ippolito, 2010). The directive stance
was most effective with unskilled and unconfident teachers or those teachers who responded to
an assertive coaching persona. The responsive stance was most effective with teachers who were
collaborative and responded to an interactive coaching persona. A balance of both stances was
necessary for contexts where conflicting needs arose. For example, a coach balanced the
responsive and directive stances when responding to the teachers’ need to control the coaching
process while managing the school leader’s coaching timeline. Additionally, coaching stances
were flexible, so that coaches could adjust stances to each school’s context (Ippolito, 2010).
The research of Finkelstein (2019) found that coaches relied on communication tools to
support their coaching. Finkelstein referred to tools like critical discourse analysis (CDA) to help
coaches develop communication norms. The researcher used the CDA tool to (a) invite teachers
to co-write coaching agendas, (b) clarify the roles and goals of coaches and teachers during
coaching, and (c) maximize coaching time. Having the tools to communicate the intentions and
goals of coaching made coaches credible with teachers (Finkelstein, 2019).

14
Building and Managing Trusting Relationships
Anderson et al. (2014) said that coaches should know the essential elements of building
trust. The researchers cited the work of Bryk and Schneider (2002) who identified the elements
of dynamic interpersonal trust as “personal regard, respect, competence, and integrity” (p. 8).
Personal regard referred to the coaches’ consideration of the teachers. Respect referred to the
high value coaches placed on teachers’ voices and backgrounds. Competence referred to the
coaches’ presentation of their knowledge and character to convince teachers of the coaches’
capacity. Lastly, integrity referred to the coaches’ communication skills and actions, such as
speaking frankly and clearly and keeping promises. Anderson et al. (2014) concluded that using
a balance of each element of trust allowed coaches to build and engage in productive coaching
relationships.
Aguilar (2013) recommended that coaches be intentional about managing coaching
relationships by collecting data to inform the planning of each coaching conversation. The
researcher suggested that coaches identify each teacher’s beliefs about coaching then use that
information to engage each teacher. In addition to understanding the teachers’ perceptions about
coaching, the researcher stated that coaches should be aware of their personal coaching beliefs.
The more aware coaches were of their coaching context, the more fruitful the relationship was
(Aguilar, 2013). Aguilar also suggested that coaching conversations include a balance of
facilitative and directive approaches, like Ippolito’s (2010) responsive and directive stances,
respectively, to accommodate teachers’ temperaments and their beliefs about coaching.
Rainville and Jones’ (2008) posited that coaches had to understand the complexities of
coaching relationships, particularly the perceived power teachers associated with the coaches’
role. Furthermore, the researchers suggested that coaches intentionally choose any one of many

15
situated identities to address the teachers’ perceptions about coaching. According to Gee (1999),
situated identities referred to the different personas coaches employed to respond to various
teacher temperaments and school contexts (Rainville & Jones, 2008). Rainville and Jones’
(2008) shared a counterexample of the importance of choosing situated identities to fit each
teacher’s temperament. Kate, the coach, used the situated identity of knower with a teacher who
was her friend. The coach’s friend respected the coach’s expertise, so the teacher followed the
coach’s direction, and they worked together to implement a new required reading curriculum in
the classroom. Kate also used the same identity with another teacher in the same school, except,
unbeknownst to Kate, he thought he had more expertise than Kate. As a result, this teacher
resisted being coached by consistently dismissing Kate’s classroom presence and suggestions.
After some time, Kate concluded that the identity of collaborator would encourage the teacher to
work with her. She adjusted her identity, resulting in Kate asking the teacher about his thoughts
about implementing the curriculum in his classroom instead of telling him how to implement it.
The teacher perceived Kate’s adjusted identity as collaborative, which the teacher said honored
his expertise. The adjusted identity also fostered the coaching relationship and encouraged the
teacher to learn and implement the new required reading curriculum (Rainville & Jones, 2008).
Metacognition (A Type of Reflection)
Metacognition, or reflection, provided coaches the information they needed to monitor
and adjust their coaching. Gibson (2006) provided evidence of the influence of reflection on
coaching while investigating the practice of an expert reading coach who provided lesson
observations and feedback to an experienced kindergarten teacher as he implemented a reading
strategy. The report contained a self-assessment of the coach’s reflections about her experiences
as a learner and a coach. Lisa, the coach who participated in the study, expressed the following

16
goals: (a) becoming better at giving helpful feedback, (b) managing the tension associated with
providing feedback, and (c) looking forward to becoming more comfortable with coaching over
time. Throughout the study, Lisa reflected on her coaching beliefs and how those beliefs had to
be adjusted to develop and navigate a productive coaching relationship with the teacher. For
example, during the first coaching cycle, Lisa discovered that the teacher was resistant to
coaching, so he did not accept her feedback. Hence, she reflected on her coaching persona and
the teacher’s coaching beliefs. As a result of her reflection, Lisa realized that her coaching
persona as an expert caused the teacher to resist. With this knowledge, the coach relaxed her
expert coaching persona and used language that affirmed the teacher’s progress, making the
teacher more comfortable, receptive during their interactions, and accepting of the coaches’
feedback. Even though Lisa was a highly motivated coach, she mentioned how her practice of
reflection made her an effective coach (Gibson, 2006). This study exemplified how
metacognition enabled a coach to self-assess then adjust her coaching to the unique context of
the school she served.
Building upon the idea of reflection influencing coaches’ capacity, Parson (2018) found
that coaches developed their agency and constructed identities as leaders when knowledge of
coaching, coaching contexts, and coaching experiences was strong. As coaches engaged in
coaching, their knowledge deepened. As a result, the coaches applied that knowledge
strategically, which built and reinforced a confident leadership identity. Similarly, when coaches
discussed and reflected on their knowledge and experiences, those activities also strengthened
their leadership identities (Parson, 2018).

17
Motivation
Pintrich (2003) simply described motivation as what moved people or influenced them to
persist, exert effort and achieve their goals. This section focuses on three types of motivation:
self-efficacy (SE), mastery experiences, and causal attributions. It includes a detailed explanation
of each motivation concept and its relation to the capacity building of instructional coaches.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1994) described SE as a person’s perception of their ability to exert control
over the outside influences on their lives to achieve their goals. Depending on the coach and the
coaching context, a coach’s SE presents differently. The following researchers provided common
characteristics of efficacious coaches and how they supported the coaches’ capacity to tailor
coaching. Additionally, each characteristic pointed to the coaches’ expert knowledge of
instruction and coaching and the coaches’ capacity to navigate the changing nature of school
contexts.
Hall and Simeral (2008) said efficacious coaches were effective because they were "self-
reflective; builders and managers of relationships; patient; able to recognize others’ strengths,
abilities and beliefs; leaders; and impactful” (p. 1–3). These were the qualities coaches needed to
thrive, especially when their role was ambiguous or changed (Hall & Simeral, 2008). Knight
(2015) used the word experienced when referring to efficacious coaches who demonstrated an
understanding of (a) the complexities of working with adults, (b) research-based coaching cycles,
(c) credible teaching practices, and (d) sound communication strategies. The coaches, discussed
in this article, said these features helped them exude the competence required to consciously
build relationships and impact teacher instructional practice (Knight, 2015). L’ Allier et al.
(2010) labeled efficacious coaches as successful when they showed instructional expertise,

18
intentionality, diligence, and a willingness to evolve (p. 545). This study cited examples of how
coaches used these attributes to succeed within various school contexts (L’ Allier et al. 2010).
In contrast to efficacious coaches, Larsen and Allen (2015) provided characteristics of
inefficacious coaches whose weak SE caused them to struggle with coaching challenges. The
following characteristics described inefficacious coaches as having “limited or no coaching
experience or understanding of adult learning, along with variable depths of understanding about
best practice in literacy,” and the lack of ability to deal effectively with challenging coaching
contexts (Larsen & Allen, 2015, p. 2). This study focused on how to help inefficacious coaches,
who were leaving their roles, persist through coaching challenges, so they would remain in the
role long enough to strengthen their SE.
Mastery Experiences
Bandura (1994) learned that a person’s SE increased or decreased based on what they
learned from their past experiences. Rainville and Jones (2008) shared a particular coaching
experience that influenced coaches’ SE: coaching teachers with resistant behaviors. Teachers
with resistant behaviors typically responded negatively to coaches because the teachers
perceived coaches as school leaders who had power over teachers (Rainville & Jones, 2008). As
mentioned in the Knowledge section of this chapter and according to Finkelstein (2016),
teachers' resistance to coaching stemmed from their previous interactions with school leaders
who were critical of the teachers’ instructional practice. The teachers perceived that coaches as
school leaders would also be critical of teachers’ instructional practices. Coaches became
demotivated from the stress of dealing with the teachers’ non-participative or verbally
disrespectful behaviors (Rainville & Jones, 2008). The coaches’ SE decreased because they did
not have previous experience overcoming the teachers’ resistant behaviors, so they did not

19
perceive that they could influence the teachers’ behaviors; a circumstance that aligned with
Bandura’s (1994) SE theory.
Conversely, Anderson et al. (2014) discovered that coaches who had experienced
coaching teachers with resistant behaviors knew that trust-building traits like respect, caring,
credibility, and honesty helped redefine the coaches’ perceived image of critical school leaders to
an image of supportive professionals. Once the teachers perceived coaches as supportive, the
teachers participated in coaching. These coaches’ SE grew in strength because they knew they
could overcome the teachers’ resistant behaviors since they had the knowledge and experience
overcoming similar coaching challenges; such experiences documented Bandura’s (1994) SE
theory.
Causal Attributions
Weiner (1985) discovered that a person’s SE influenced how they attributed the causes
for experiences, impacting their response to those experiences. Causal attributions was the term
used to explain how a person perceived the cause of an experience (Weiner, 1985). Perceived
negative, novel, or meaningful experiences usually prompted individuals to seek a cause.
Individuals attributed the causes of experiences based on three causal dimensions: locus of
control, stability, and controllability (Weiner, 1985). Locus of control referred to a person’s
perception of where the cause originated, either within a person’s influence or outside of their
influence. Stability referred to a person’s perception of the cause’s variability or the cause’s
likelihood to persist or change over time and space. Controllability referred to a person's
perception of their control over a cause.
The literature offered examples of how coaches’ causal attributions of coaching
experiences influenced their responses to those experiences, impacting their capacity. Finkelstein

20
(2016) provided strategies that addressed the causes of teachers’ resistant. First, the researcher
said that it was the coach's responsibility to understand the relationship between the school’s
leaders and the teachers, providing the coach context about the teachers’ behaviors (Finkelstein,
2016). This first strategy encouraged the use of two causal dimensions: locus of control and
controllability. Understanding the locus of control of a cause compels coaches to identify the
cause of teachers’ resistant behaviors, so they can the coaches can prepare to coach the teachers.
Likewise, understanding the controllability of a cause focuses coaches' efforts on understanding
the context of the resistant teachers’ behaviors to overcome those behaviors instead of reacting to
them.
Next, Finkelstein (2016) stated that the coach had to understand that the teachers were
not resistant to the coach as a person but that the teachers responded to their previous negative
experiences with school leaders who were critical of the teachers’ instruction. This strategy
embodied all the causal dimensions. It prompts coaches to understand that the cause of the
teachers’ behaviors originated (locus of control) outside of the coaches’ control, affecting
coaches’ perception about how they could change the cause (stability). The coaches’ perception
of the locus of control of a cause also impacts their efforts to change the teachers’ negative
experiences with critical leaders (controllability).
The last strategy noted that the coach had to possess strategies for building trust
(Finkelstein, 2016). This strategy also embodied all the causal dimensions. It prompted coaches
to understand where the cause of the teachers’ behaviors originated (locus of control) and that
the cause could change (stability) once the coaches built trusting relationships with the teachers
(controllability). Afterward, the researcher suggested that coaches understand the specifics of
teachers' negative experiences to manage the trusting relationships they built with the teachers.

21
An approach called situated identities, shared in the Knowledge section of this literature
review, also helped coaches work with teachers with resistant behaviors. Situated identities were
the variety of contextually based personalities coaches used to engage and coach teachers, that is,
adjusting coaching language to appear approachable to teachers or choosing a location for
coaching that made teachers feel welcome and at ease (Rainville & Jones, 2008). This strategy
highlighted the causal dimension called controllability. It showed how changing coaches’
approaches or coaching contexts changed teachers’ resistant behaviors. Finally, the researcher
noted that coaches’ strong SE helped them persist in coaching because previous experiences
taught them that their efforts could resolve these challenges, for example, searching for strategies
that fit schools ' contexts (Finkelstein, 2016).
Organizational Support
Like knowledge and motivation, the organizational support coaches received also
influenced their capacity. Clark and Estes (2008) learned that even motivated people who
possessed an expert level of knowledge did not achieve their goals if the organizational support
they needed was missing or insufficient. This section focuses on four types of organizational
support: (a) readiness for coaching; (b) a process for establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and
goals for coaching; (c) a process that supports coaching implementation; and (d) an assessment
and evaluation process to track and monitor coaching goals. It includes a detailed explanation of
each support concept and its relation to the capacity building of instructional coaches.
Readiness for Coaching
Snow et al. (2005) found that school leaders and coaches had to take the time to
determine if coaching was needed and could work in their schools before introducing it to their
schools. School leaders who successfully implemented coaching used three criteria to evaluate

22
their school’s readiness for coaching: the facets of trust among the school staff, shared
responsibility among all school stakeholders, and the staff's openness for change. The
researchers posited that school leaders who identified and addressed the contextual factors that
supported or hindered coaching before implementing coaching were the most successful.
Additionally, administrators who led successful coaching programs included school staff in the
decision-making process (Snow et al., 2005).
Elmore (2002) asserted that the success of any school meant all school stakeholders
assumed responsibility for the school’s progress. He suggested that all school stakeholders have
an equal share in the responsibility and be equally accountable for school improvement. Elmore
(2002) stated that quality professional development was the way to promote school improvement
and that the success of PD depended on all school stakeholders.
A Process for Establishing Clear Roles, Responsibilities, and Goals for Coaching
The IRA (2006) developed national standards to help professional developers define the
roles and responsibilities of coaches and thereby increase coaches’ capacity. The IRA’s (2006)
coaching standards established a common set of criteria regarding coaches’ knowledge, skills,
dispositions, and the coaching contexts that helped stakeholders identify areas of consensus
about their existing or future coaching programs. The work led by the IRA and produced by
several professional content area teaching associations resulted in one of the most collaborative
efforts to concretize the roles and responsibilities of coaches. Also, the coaching standards
identified the criteria and characteristics of effective coaches (IRA, 2006). For example, skillful
coaches were effective collaborators, coaches, and evaluators of data.
Role clarity was referenced as an influence on coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to
schools’ contexts (Blamey et al., 2008; Lynch & Ferguson, 2014; Neufeld & Roper, 2003;

23
Rainville & Jones, 2008; Shanklin, 2007). Blamey et al. (2008) defined role clarity as the
information coaches’ received about the goal of coaching, their part in goal achievement, and
how to achieve their goal. According to the researcher’s study, survey participants stated that
role clarity helped them confidently plan and tailor coaching strategies to the contexts of the
schools they served. Shanklin (2007) associated the clear communication of coaches’ roles with
coaching goal achievement.
Conversely, Lynch and Ferguson (2014) found that the amount of ambiguity surrounding
the role of coaches diminished coaches’ capacity. Additionally, based on their national survey,
Bean et al. (2015) discovered ambiguity surrounding the role of one district’s literacy coaches
based on the overlapping responsibilities of its literacy coaches and literacy specialists. For
example, literacy coaches trained and assigned to observe lessons and provide feedback to
teachers. Their role also included implementing literacy initiatives like leading the curriculum
adoption process, a responsibility for which they received no training. The latter of the coaches’
responsibilities were part of the duties of literacy specialists who trained to lead such initiatives,
making the coaches feel unqualified and unable to complete their responsibilities. The
uncertainty of the literacy coaches’ responsibilities presented challenges for them because they
could not do all their duties and therefore did not fulfill their roles (Bean et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the researchers surmised that coaches who did not have a strong SE did not persist
or overcome the challenges of their ambiguous roles. As a result, the coaches did not achieve
their coaching goals (Bean et al., 2015).
Despite the benefits of role clarity for coaches and the challenges of role ambiguity, the
research of Blamey et al. (2008) found that coaches continued to be assigned to work in schools
where their roles were not defined or not clearly defined. The frequency data from a study

24
conducted by Blamey et al. (2008) showed that 74% of respondents believed that coaches’ roles
remained undefined. Also, the study revealed that 15% of respondents thought the district
defined the coaches’ roles using a top-down structure, meaning that the coaches did not have
input into defining their roles. Finally, the study noted that 11% of respondents helped define
their roles through a collaborative process between the district and the coaches.
Additionally, when school leaders and teachers did not understand who the coaches were
and why the coaches were in the building, it made the coaches’ jobs more difficult (Lynch &
Ferguson, 2014). Desimone and Pak (2017) also discovered that when school leaders and
coaches disagreed about which of the coaches’ responsibilities were most important, the conflict
negatively impacted the coaching goals. Finally, the clarity of coaches’ responsibilities and goals
was as important as defining the coaches’ roles (Desimone & Pak, 2017). Coaching
responsibilities and goals that were constant, cohesive, collaborative, centered around student
learning, and engaged teachers were most impactful because they improved teachers’
instructional practice and student learning (Desimone & Pak, 2017).
A Process That Supports Coaching Implementation
Based on a study of a particular coaching model, Poglinco et al. (2003) found that the
designers of PD for coaches had to address several factors to support coaching like providing
ongoing support to existing coaches as new implementation challenges arose and adjusting and
differentiating learning to meet the needs of the coaches. The researchers also suggested that PD
designers make coaches aware of any resources that supported coaching. The literature also
recommended that coaches revisit initial training or use coach mentors to help coaches
accommodate the school’s context and achieve coaching goals (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).

25
Marsh et al. (2008) found that school leaders had the power to establish the importance of
coaching in their schools by providing the needed resources for coaches to achieve their goals.
One of the coaching resources included scheduling time for teachers and coaches to collaborate
and plan. According to Marsh et al. (2008), about one-third of the coaches surveyed said the
school schedule was “a moderate to great hindrance to their work”, meaning that the coaches
attributed their inability to coach to the limited amount of uninterrupted coaching time they had
with teachers (p. xx). When coaches did not have time to meet with teachers, the coaches
responded by focusing their time on other non-coaching responsibilities like completing
paperwork. The reduced amount of coaching time adversely influenced coaches’ impact on
teachers’ instructional practice (Marsh et al., 2008). Additionally, the coaches perceived the
reduction in coaching time as a sign of the decreasing priority for coaching, also influencing the
coaches’ capacity and motivation (Marsh et al., 2008). The lack of scheduling for coaching was
one of the primary methods of organizational support referenced in the literature.
A Process of Assessment and Evaluation to Track and Monitor Coaching Goals
Lowenhaupt et al. (2014) stated that coaching was a dynamic process that involved many
factors, all of which the coaches needed to be aware. Lowenhaupt et al. (2014) cited Hargreaves’
(1995) work on symbolic interactionism, a perspective that analyzed coaches’ capacity through
the examination of coaches’ work context and experiences and how coaches navigated those
contexts and experiences. Hargreaves (1995) expounded on symbolic interactionism by stating
that the concept’s goal was to support coaches’ work by understanding the work conditions and
the level of influence those conditions had on the coaches’ work. Without knowing the
influences on the coaches’ work, it was challenging to provide coaches the support they needed
to be successful (Lowenhaupt et al., 2014).

26
Shanklin (2007) found that school leaders who supported coaching monitored the goals
for coaching. Other leadership practices included endorsing coaching by working with the coach
and being engaged in the coaching process and its evaluation (Shanklin, 2007). Schulze (2016)
found that the collaboration between coaches and principals transformed schools and that the
selection of an effective coach was essential for sharing leadership responsibilities and
communicating school goals.
Conceptual Framework
Grant and Osanloo (2016) defined a conceptual framework as a method for understanding
how to approach a problem, guide the investigation of that problem, and make any connections
between the variables in the study. Grant and Oslanoo (2016) continued by adding that the
concepts and principles found in the literature review could be displayed visually to reveal any
relationships. Clark and Estes’ (2008) three KMO factors provided the categories for the
influences that appeared throughout the literature review. The relationship between the factors
allowed for a deeper understanding of each factor’s influence on coaches’ capacity and how the
relationships between the factors also influenced the coaches’ capacity.
Figure 1 illustrated the influence of the KMO factors on the coaches’ capacity by starting
at the center with the study’s purpose, to build the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the
unique contexts of the schools they serve. The surrounding circles identified the KMO factors
that influenced coaches’ capacity. The overlapping circles denoted their interrelationship. Each
rectangle listed the specific concepts related to the coaches’ capacity as identified in the
literature. Located near their respective KMO factor, each rectangle used an arrow to point to its
factor.

27
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

First, the knowledge concepts of coaching models, communicating with adult learners,
building and managing relationships, and metacognition related to the coaches’ capacity to tailor
their coaching to the individual contexts of the schools they served. Next, the motivational
concepts of self-efficacy, mastery experiences, and causal attributions related to the coaches’
perception of their capacity, impacting their capacity. Finally, the organizational support
concepts of readiness for coaching; a process for establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and
goals for coaching; a process that supports coaching implementation; and a process for
assessment and evaluation to track and monitor coaching goals related to the coaches’ need for
school contextual data and processes to prepare and implement coaching in various schools’
contexts.

28
Conclusion
This chapter explored the various influential factors on the capacity of coaches to tailor
coaching to the unique contexts of the schools they serve. This literature review started with the
evolution of coaching. Next, based on its literature review, this study identified the KMO factors
that influenced the coaches’ capacity. After which came an overview of Clark and Estes’ (2008)
model as the conceptual guide for this study. Chapter 3 details this study’s methodological
approach to exploring the coaches’ perceptions of their experiences to deeply understand how
the KMO factors influenced their capacity building.

29
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influenced the capacity building
of The Coaching Company’s (TCC) instructional coaches. A phenomenological approach drew
on the perceived work experiences of TCC’s national coaching staff. Since the coaches were the
targeted population, understanding their perceptions of their capacity to tailor coaching to each
school’s unique context and goals provided insights into the influence of the KMO factors. This
chapter started with research questions that guided this study’s methodological design. Next, a
statement of the researcher’s role and positionality made visible any influences on data
interpretation. The following section explained the data collection instrument, followed by
descriptions of the data collection and data analysis processes. The following section offered the
validity and reliability of the data. A statement of the ethics of this study concluded this chapter.
Research Questions
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to tailor
coaching services to the unique context of each school?
2. What are the motivational assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to
tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting TCC coaches and their
capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
Overview of Design
This study used qualitative research methods because they allowed the researcher to
explore and understand a group’s perceptions of a problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). More
specifically, a phenomenological approach kept the study’s focus on richly describing individual
experiences of a problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). First, I conducted interviews with the

30
coaches. Next, I collected and reviewed one coaching log from each coach. The logs were the
coaches’ records of strategies used with the teachers they coached and the coaching outcomes or
goals that influenced the teachers’ instructional practice. Coaching logs provided additional
insights into each coach’s perceptions and beliefs about their work experiences.
The Researcher
At the time of the study, I held a leadership position within TCC. However, none of the
participants in this study reported directly to her. I was a regional director of professional
development who managed coaches in a particular region, so she invited TCC’s national
coaching staff who coached outside her region to participate in this study. I had ten years of
coaching experience with TCC and direct knowledge of instructional coaching with TCC. This
knowledge helped me understand the experiences of TCC’s coaches. At the same time, this
experience also limited my objectivity as a data interpreter. Member checking a draft of the
initial findings with respondents and reflexive memos minimized the researcher’s assumptions
and biases (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Sample and Population
In keeping with Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) research for gaining access to collect data,
the company’s vice president of professional development authorized the researcher to email the
company’s national coaches. The national professional development coaching staff for TCC, a
third-party supplemental education service vendor that provided support services, was the
targeted population for this study. There were about 60 TCC national coaches at the time of this
study.
I purposefully selected seventeen coaches. A type of purposive sampling called
maximum variation determined which coaches received invitations to participate in the study.

31
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described maximum variation as the type of sampling where the
researcher purposefully selected people who had diverse experiences and perspectives. This type
of sampling aligned with the research design and the research questions because it allowed the
researcher to identify common perceptions about coaching from various coaches’ experiences.
The literature provided the sampling criteria for this study: coaching experience, teaching
experience, and formal coaching training (Anderson, et al., 2014; Bean et al., 2015; Blamey et
al., 2008; Calo et al., 2015). I used these criteria to select coaches whose coaching experiences
differed as much as possible. Thirteen coaches accepted the invitation and participated in this
study (N=13).
Data Instrumentation
According to Patton (2002), the semi-structured interview guide provided me with a plan
for getting my questions answered while allowing the interview to flow like a conversation.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviews were the primary data collection method
for phenomenological research because they helped the interviewee and me stay focused on the
interviewee's lived experiences. Patton (2002) suggested six types of questions to use when
planning an interview: (a) experience and behavior questions, (b) opinion and values questions,
(c) feeling questions, (d) knowledge questions, (e) sensory questions, and (f) background and
demographic questions. Each question type allowed the interviewer to communicate questions
clearly, so the respondents could provide the information needed to address the study goal
(Patton, 2002).
Four of Patton’s (2002) six question types were in the interview protocol because they
supported the research goal. Experience and behavior questions provided me insight into the
participant’s experiences as if the interviewer were there with the participant, which aligned with

32
the phenomenological approach. These question types also added the rich, descriptive data this
study required to understand its problem deeply. Opinion and value questions probed the
coaches’ thinking about their experiences, which aligned with the research questions focused on
the coaches’ attitudes and beliefs about their knowledge, motivation, and the support the
company provided to aid in building its coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique
contexts of schools. Knowledge questions and the background and demographic questions
elicited factual information from the participants, which aligned with the research question
focused on the knowledge and qualifications of the coaches. The interview protocol included six
questions that focused on the coaches’ experiences, five questions that inquired about the
coaches’ attitudes and behaviors, two questions centered on the coaches’ knowledge, and six
questions that asked coaches for their opinions and values.
Data Collection
I collected data in two stages over two months. In the first stage of data collection, which
happened over six weeks, one-hour interviews with each respondent took place. Weiss (1994)
pointed out that the interview environment must be where the respondents were uninterrupted
and felt comfortable. Therefore, this study’s participants chose a setting that allowed them to be
comfortable and to speak candidly. As suggested by Patton (2002), a video conferencing
software recorded the interviews because it was cost-effective for me since the national coaching
staff lived throughout the United States. Patton also suggested backing up the interview
recordings with a secondary recording device or using notes if there were technical malfunctions.
My notes served as the backup for the recorded interviews.
According to Weiss (1994), interviews allowed outsiders into the experiences and
perceptions of those who had a firsthand encounter with events when direct observations were

33
not possible. Interviews supported my understanding of the coaches’ opinions and experiences.
Specifically, the data shone a light on (a) the coaches’ thoughts about their knowledge as
coaches, (b) their perceptions about their coaching capacity, and (c) if and how they felt TCC
supported their capacity as coaches. This information pinpointed the influences that impacted the
coaches’ capacity to tailor their coaching to the unique needs of each school’s context.
In the next stage of data collection, which happened over two weeks, the collection of
coaching logs occurred. The coaching logs provided insights into each coach’s perceptions,
beliefs, and coaching experiences, so this data source aligned with the aim of this study and the
research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Coaching logs captured two types of data: (a) the
coaching between the coaches, teachers, and schools and (b) the features of the log which
included its format and its content. Both types of data provided information about each coach’s
overall coaching experience. I secured permission from the vice president of the professional
development department of TCC and the coaches involved in this study to access all coaching
logs stored in the company’s web-based coaching log database, the email coaching log cache, or
the coaches’ files. I recorded the data collection process, and reflective memos chronicled my
thinking, feelings, experiences, and perceptions throughout the research process to maintain
validity and reliability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data Analysis
I produced an extensive literature review, conducted in-depth interviews with TCC’s
instructional coaches, and analyzed the interview data and the coaching logs to understand the
existing assets and needs of the coaches. Based on insights from the literature review and the
three KMO factors identified in Clark and Estes’ (2008) model, a priori codes were used to code
the interview data. Then I refined the codes, generated more codes, and developed code

34
categories. The process of coding the interview data followed the Gibbs’ (2018) comparative
strategy of tables method. According to Gibbs (2018), the method organized the data using a
table, each column contained the data of a participant and each row held a code category. This
data organization analysis method allowed me to examine the columns for each participant’s
experience and compare each participant’s experience to the other participants’ experiences. This
method also allowed me to study the rows for patterns in each code category for each KMO
factor and compare those patterns to patterns found in the other KMO factors (Gibbs, 2018).
I reviewed the coaching logs to corroborate the interview data. Since I was unable to
observe the coaches as they coached, the coaching logs allowed me access to the coaches’ work
experiences. Each coach offered one of their logs, from which I chose each coach’s most recent
logs. I examined one log per coach, analyzing a total of thirteen logs. Based on the time of this
study, ten of the thirteen coaching logs were less than a month old, two of the thirteen logs were
more than six months old, and one of the thirteen logs was more than a year old. The
examination included a review of the log’s content, or the coaching strategies used during the
coaching session, the coaching session purpose, outcomes, and goals, and the log’s format. Then
I compared each log to the other logs to determine if any patterns emerged regarding the logs’
content and format.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that a study’s validity and reliability were rooted in the
principled process of its data collection. For a qualitative study to be deemed valid, its findings
must accomplish its intended goal as described and examined by me (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). I characterized my study’s findings as reliable by testing the consistency of its
approaches. The following strategies verified the validity and reliability of this research.

35
The study used the coaches’ recorded interviews, coaching logs, and my interview notes
as data sources. The process of triangulation substantiated the evidence from these data sources.
An analysis of each data source identified themes that supported data interpretation.
Regarding the coaching logs, I adapted a list of questions produced by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) to establish the trustworthiness of each coaching log. The process ensured that the
logs used in this study were genuine. Afterward, the logs were analyzed to gain insight into each
of the coaches’ experiences.
Member checking was the primary strategy used to ensure the validity of the interview
data. This strategy confirmed the interview data of the study’s participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Therefore, I provided each participant a draft of my findings to verify their collective
perspective and voice.
My interview notes, including her reflections, were the primary strategy to ensure
reliability. I identified and noted the influence of her worldview, biases, and connections to the
study, confirming the reliability of the findings and added to my dependability (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). These strategies tied into the research design as they provided assurances that the
data contained accurate, reliable, and diverse perspectives.
Ethics
The goal of this dissertation endeavored to answer the research questions within the
confines of the conceptual framework by understanding the beliefs and points of view of the
coaching staff. This process involved communicating with several individuals to elicit their
personal beliefs, opinions, and experiences. To protect those conversations, first, I acquired
permission from the coaches and the company for whom the coaches worked to collect data.
Next, I openly identified myself to the coaches as a leader in the same company as the targeted

36
population. Only the coaches who did not report directly to me were included in the sample to
avoid issues of positionality and power. This approach also aligned with the research design by
providing a space where the interviewees felt free to voice their views without fear of any
repercussions from me. This method, combined with the strict adherence to the IRB process,
helped mitigate power, positionality, and ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, at the beginning of the entire data collection process, I presented the vice
president of the PD department with a copy of the information sheet each coach in the sample
population received before being interviewed. Afterward, the distributed information sheet
explained (a) the purpose of the study, (b) the coaches’ rights were in terms of the IRB process,
(c) how I kept the study confidential, (d) how the coaches’ participation was voluntary, and (e)
that the coaches could have refused to answer any question or could have left the study at any
time without harm or consequence (Glesne, 2011). Then immediately before using any document
or interview data collection instrument, I reminded each participant of the consent’s content,
orally and in writing. This discussion reminded the participants that coaching logs and interviews
were confidential and that the use of pseudonyms concealed their identity.

37
Chapter Four: Findings
This study explored the influential factors on the capacity of instructional coaches to
tailor coaching to the unique contexts of schools through the coaches’ perceptions of their
coaching experiences. This chapter organized its findings into three factors: the coaches’
knowledge, motivation, and the organizational support available for coaching (KMO). Each
factor identified assets or influences that strengthened coaches’ capacity and needs or influences
that inhibited coaches’ capacity. Each section below presented each KMO factor related to the
literature and the instructional coaches’ capacity then presented findings derived from the
qualitative data. The following questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to tailor
coaching services to the unique context of each school?
2. What are the motivational assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to
tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting TCC coaches and their
capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
Participants
Thirteen national coaches participated in this study (N=13). Each participant completed a
one-hour interview and approved the use of their coaching logs in this study. Pseudonyms
protected the identity of study participants and helped the researcher identify responses across
findings.
Research Question 1
The findings for the first research question identified knowledge concepts as assets or
needs related to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique context of each school.

38
The conceptual framework detailed in Chapter 2 identified four knowledge concepts: (a)
knowledge of coaching models, (b) communicating with adult learners, (c) building and
maintaining trusting relationships, and (d) metacognition or reflection. Additional insights
highlighted by the coaches conclude this section.
Knowledge Findings
The subsequent sections present the findings for each knowledge concept based on the
coaches’ perspectives. Next, the evidence of each concept’s influence on the coaches’ capacity
identified it as an asset or a need. Finally, the research supporting the findings concludes each
section.
Coaching Models
Bengo (2016) pointed out that understanding various coaching models, particularly
cognitive coaching, content-area coaching, and instructional coaching, helped to tailor coaching
to the school’s context. Of the thirteen coaches interviewed, six coaches named the instructional
coaching model or the cognitive coaching model as the model they used during coaching. The
remaining seven coaches did not identify a specific model but referenced the coaching strategies
they used during coaching. None of the coaches mentioned aligning the model they used with a
school’s context.
Coach I gave a typical response of the coaches who alluded to the strategies they used, “I
think it is helpful to have a basic understanding of the coaching process, you know ... how do
you get the person kind of enrolled or interested and committed to coaching then be responsive
to their needs.” Coach F provided a typical example of how coaches who named the coaching
model they used referred to elements of the model they named when describing their
experiences. For example, when referring to cognitive coaching, a model that focused on

39
understanding teachers’ behavior to support the teacher’s instructional practice, Coach F
explained how important it was to connect with teachers,
I did go through professional training to be a life coach [a form of cognitive
coaching] ... it is very important to make those connections, even with teacher
practice ... If you're not connecting, you're not going to be an effective coach at all,
and connection requires listening. It requires leading with heart, like really listening
to understand, not just listening for the purpose of hearing what someone has to
say. But do you really understand what the person is trying to communicate and
what the issues are that the teacher is facing?
While sharing their experiences using coaching models, four of the six coaches who
named the model they used described the elements of a different model. For example, Coach C
called themselves an instructional coach, aligning themselves with the model that focused on
helping teachers determine how students learn. However, when discussing their experience about
learning the model, Coach C described the elements of the content-area coaching model, which
focused on helping teachers teach a particular content area like mathematics,
I … learned what it was like to be uncomfortable learning new instructional
strategies and techniques, particularly around the areas of [the name of a content-
area] and using manipulatives to teach conceptual understanding ... [which] I
believe prepared me to become the strong instructional coach that I am.
Coach K explained how they changed models as they developed professionally, “the coaching ...
that I was taught was kind of rigid [describing content-area coaching model], I hate to say that at
first, but it wasn't really getting to the heart of the matter. The [name of cognitive coaching
model] really gets you to the root of what it [the teachers’ behavior] is.”

40
Overall, six coaches named the coaching models they used and provided evidence of their
knowledge of the models. Of those six coaches, four coaches said they received formal coaching
training, either from TCC or before joining TCC. The remaining seven coaches who did not
name a model but described strategies they used said they did not have formal coaching training.
Additionally, the coaches did not mention aligning the models they used to schools’ contexts.
Based on the number of coaches who did not provide evidence of their knowledge of coaching
models and the absence of evidence aligning coaching models to schools’ contexts, this factor is
a need.
Communicating With Adult Learners
Ippolito (2010) offered the idea of differentiating communication stances to facilitate
coaching. During the interviews, coaches shared the importance of knowing how adults learn and
how that knowledge influenced their communication with teachers. It was typical for coaches to
demonstrate their knowledge of adult learning theory by giving teachers choices regarding how
they were coached. For example, Coach D said,
You give them a choice of which to choose from because they know better; their
students, the environment that they are placed in and what are some strategies that
they will be more comfortable and able to put in more quickly to get them success.
Listening was a communication strategy that coaches commonly mentioned in their
interviews. Ten of the thirteen coaches interviewed used the word “listening” when describing an
essential type of communication with adults. For example, when discussing communication
strategies, Coach J summarized it in the following way, “Listening is huge.” Coach A said,
“Listening and questioning are the two most important strategies that have the most impact [on
achieving coaching goals].” Coach B stated that they used listening and questioning to “figure

41
out where that person was ... [which was] the data in the moment, the real-time data ... And to
dig deep, to get to what you [the teacher] know(s), a lot of times people have their solutions.
They just don't realize it.” Coach M shared how they used listening to uncover teachers’
coaching goals, “[I] leveraged, you know, their [the teacher’s] voice and identified where they're
at and where that preferred future is for them and then helping them bridge ... to get to that
point.”
Interviewees also noted how understanding how adults learned was necessary when
determining which communication stance, or strategy, to use. Coach I shared an example of the
connection between their knowledge of adult learning and their choice of a communication
strategy, “as adults, as learners, we know that adults have to be able to kind of process what
they're learning. So, I think [teachers need] the ability to kind of process and think through,
obviously, connecting it to prior learning that kind of thing.” This strategy was an example of a
responsive communication stance which accommodates how teachers learned (Ippolito, 2010).
Coach C shared another example, “Adults have to hear things three times before they really start
to become comfortable with things. And I find that strategy works best with the adults that I'm
working with.” This strategy was an example of a directive communication stance that guides
teachers’ coaching experiences (Ippolito, 2010).
All the coaches mentioned the advantage of having communication tools to aid coaching.
Six of the thirteen coaches specifically used the word “toolbox” or “toolkit” when describing
how communication tools supported coaching. For example, Coach M used their “toolkit” to
share strategies and resources that they knew would work because they had previously worked
for the coach in similar classroom contexts. Coach A said they accessed their “huge toolbox” to

42
“acknowledge [teachers’] progress, give [teachers] praise with evidence, and to provide
[teachers] frequent ongoing communication.”
In summary, the coaches connected their practical understanding of how adults learn to
their choice of communication stance or tool. Communication supported the coaches’ capacity to
listen to teachers and understand their behaviors. All the coaches said they used communication
to start dialogues with teachers about the intention and expectations of coaching which was also
the basis for their coaching relationships. This concept is an asset based on the evidence of the
coaches’ application of their knowledge of adult learning to their choice of communication
stances and tools.
Building and Managing Trusting Relationships
The coaches noted that knowing the elements of building trust was the basis for building
and managing trusting relationships. Anderson et al. (2014) cited the work of Bryk and
Schneider (2002) who identified the four parts of dynamic interpersonal trust as “personal
regard, respect, competence, and integrity” (p. 8). Eight of the thirteen coaches interviewed used
the words “trust” and “respect” when describing their approach to building relationships. The
subsequent experiences show the importance of the connection between the coaches’ knowledge
of the elements of building trust and the coaches’ capacity to build trust with teachers. Coach D
leaned in, looked directly into the camera, and spoke about the importance of the element of
respect,
Number one is respect the person, respect where they are coming from and also
demonstrate that appreciation and acknowledge the people or the person you're
working with so that they feel comfortable, they feel valued and that they know that
they will be supported by the coach while working during that partnership.

43
Coach B used the element of competence with teachers, stating that “an overarching theme of
coaching is relationships and being willing to build that relationship to earn trust.”
Additionally, all coaches used any or a combination of the following words “humility”,
“vulnerability,” “honesty”, “truthfulness”, “openness,” and “partnership”, “equals” when
articulating their regard and respect for teachers. Coach K offered an example of how the
coaches used these words to describe building relationships,
I think it's where there's definite trust, the relationship is there. They know I'm not
there to judge but to support and help. And they know that I value what they bring
to the table, and I respect who they are as a teacher, and I see the strengths in who
they are.
Seven of the thirteen coaches said they included teachers in goal setting and drafting
coaching plans because those actions communicated to the teachers that their teaching
experiences were valuable to the coaching process. Coach E’s experience was an example of a
combination of regard, respect, and coaching actions,
Your coaching relationship with a specific individual ... is definitely one with
mutual trust and respect. And it's one where there is a sense of camaraderie, or like
teamwork within that relationship. And then I feel like they both [the coach and the
teacher] should feel value in establishing and reaching goals as equals.
While all the coaches spoke to their experiences with managing teacher relationships,
eight coaches mentioned specific approaches that helped them manage the trust they built with
teachers. Coach G summarized Aguilar’s (2013) facilitative approach when describing how they
managed a coaching relationship, “it [the coaching relationship] is more like a partnership where
two people are equals, and each of them are bringing something to the table.” Coach C

44
explained how knowing each teacher enabled the coach to choose the approach that fit the
teacher’s needs,
You got to know your people. You got to know those people who just want you to
come in and tell them what they need to know ... you got to know those people
and how to ask them the questions that get them right where they need to go.
Versus the people who want to ponder. A little bit more. And dig into things and
they need more processing time.
When reflecting on the challenges of managing relationships with teachers, Coach K
recalled how they maintained trust by assuming a particular identity, “I am open and vulnerable
to them ... so they feel safe.” Emphasizing their point with hand gestures, Coach C used another
identity, “trustworthy, [which] it's more than trust” to convince teachers of their intentions during
coaching. Situated identities is an approach based on the research of Rainville and Jones (2008).
In summary, all the coaches expressed the utmost respect, regard, and value for teachers,
their work, and the challenges teachers faced daily. Based on the interview data, the coaches
used their knowledge of building trust, coaching approaches, and situated identities to align their
personas with each teacher’s disposition. Anderson et al. (2014) supported the coaches’ use of
the elements of trust by emphasizing the influence of trust on “having ‘deep’ conversations and
engaging in truly collaborative work” (p. 8). The coaches’ trust-building capacity provided clear
evidence of this concept’s identification as an asset.
Metacognition (A Type of Reflection)
Parsons (2018) posited that coaches’ capacity developed as their metacognitive
knowledge of coaching and coaching contexts grew. All the coaches said that they reflected,

45
though how they reflected varied. The following statements captured the variability of coaches’
reflection strategies. Coach D said that before coaching they reflect by thinking aloud,
I think every single time I go in ... almost as part of my regular prep work is to think
aloud ‘okay, what are the questions I'm going to ask, what do I already know from
before or if this is my first time, I think what will I ask so I get to know the school
and the teachers’.
While looking up as if they were reflecting in the interview moment, Coach B shared that
after coaching they reflect by self-assessing their coaching,
I try to reflect on it. Like how did that go, what could I have done differently if I
was watching that from above, and I could rewind and do it all again. Would I be
more direct or, you know, listen. Sometimes I've gone the other way. Sometimes
I've made a teacher cry and said to myself, ‘Oh my gosh, you know...you could
have said it in a nicer way like that was not the time’ ... what I could have done
differently or what went okay, those little personal celebrations.
Coach F explained how they reflected while assessing school contextual data, having
discussions about progress, and analyzing the types of questions they,
[I reflect] all the time. Reflection is major. I reflect on qualitative and quantitative
data in conversations and numbers, respectively, to prepare for coaching, even
while I'm coaching. I like to engage my leaders in reflection during the coaching
process. And then certainly afterward, I'm always reflecting on the types of
questions I asked. You know, did that question really meet the demand?

46
Coach M shared that they have honed their informal and formal reflection strategies
throughout their years of coaching. After coaching, Coach I shared that writing their coaching
logs caused them to reflect on their coaching experience,
I feel like the biggest reflection for me is during my coaching logs, those really
have turned into a reflection for me because it really kind of helped me, it forces
me to kind of pick apart that, you know, that coaching session or that day of
coaching ... you know, to kind of hold me accountable to write [about] coaching
and then being effective.
Even though the coaches’ reflection strategies varied, they expressed the importance of
reflection. The coaches described using reflection to inform their capacity because it helped them
process their coaching experiences and learn from them, which were strategies suggested by
Parson (2018). Based on the evidence of the coaches’ reflection informing their coaching,
metacognition is an asset.
Additional Insights
Teaching Experience. All the coaches interviewed had classroom teaching experience
ranging from five years to fifteen years, which they said appreciably contributed to their capacity
to coach. Ten of the thirteen coaches interviewed said that their years of teaching experience
helped them relate to teachers. Also, the coaches thought that being relatable made the teachers
open to coaching. The remaining two coaches said that their leadership experiences helped them
visualize how coaching benefits a school’s context and goals.
Coach F provided an example of how their leadership experience helped them envision
how to use coaching to support a school’s context and goals, “But I would say that having that
leadership lens and seeing what it takes to create continuous improvement is absolutely the piece

47
that helped me [coach].” While Coach J described how important their teaching experience was
to their coaching capacity, “I'm still in the classroom today in the role of a sub because it keeps
me fresh. It keeps me on track with what you're [the teacher] dealing with ... that's relatable.”
Coach I reached out with their hands as they stated that teachers responded when they believed
the coach empathized with them and their situation, “I think, first of all, is having some
experience doing the job of the person that you're coaching. So, I felt like I was able to relate”
Coach K said they shared their teaching experiences to relate to teachers, “You know, showing
some of my hand [teaching experiences] and sharing some of my own mistakes along the way.
So, they feel safe in sharing and taking risks with me.”
Additionally, the ten coaches said their teaching experiences helped them understand the
teachers’ experiences. Coach I shared again,
I think they really appreciate that camaraderie as much as anything, you know, and
the fact that you understand their role and their struggles and their challenges, and
can relate to them ... I think that one strategy is that ability to partner and, listening
to them and kind of building off of their experiences and interests and their
expertise as well.
Overall, ten of the coaches expressed how their teaching experiences helped them
connect with teachers. Without their experiences, the coaches felt that the teachers would not
have listened to them or trusted their judgments. Two of the coaches shared how their leadership
experiences helped them imagine how to use coaching to benefit a school’s context and goals.
An inference worth noting is that the coaches did not mention the context of their teaching
experiences. Although teachers generally have similar experiences based on their job
expectations like increasing their students’ achievement and improving their instructional

48
practices, the context of their experiences differs considerably based on the type of school,
school community, and student population. The context of the coaches’ experiences influences
their capacity to make connections. Based on the coaches’ perspectives and experiences, their
teaching and leadership experiences are an asset.
Instructional Expertise. There was one strategy to which seven of the thirteen coaches
interviewed referred when describing how they demonstrated their expertise: modeling lessons
or a strategy. The following statements are typical examples of the coaches’ experiences with
modeling lessons or strategies. Coach B shared a time when a teacher questioned their
knowledge and expertise then refused the coach’s insistence to model strategies for the teacher in
the teacher’s class. Finally, after months of insisting, the coach asked the teacher’s permission to
model a lesson in their classroom. The teacher allowed the coach to model a lesson during the
last class of the day, which included an unresponsive group of students. The coach thought the
teacher chose that particular class, so the coach would have a “bad” lesson. The coach taught the
modeled lesson, and the students were engaged and responsive to the lesson’s content. After the
modeled lesson, the coach remembered, “I think that it [the modeled lesson] made a big
difference because [the teacher] saw that [the coach] is not just all talk. [They] know what
[they’re] doing. [They] know the subject matter. They know the kids; they can read a room.” To
the coach’s surprise, the teacher eventually used some of the lesson strategies the coach modeled
and shared with the coach how the students positively responded to the strategies.
Coach I shared similar success with modeling a strategy. The coach modeled a strategy in
a teacher’s classroom with the students and invited other teachers to observe. The coach recalled,
One of the most effective things I thought that we did was a demonstration
[modeled lesson] where we would meet in a teacher's classroom. And then we

49
would, you know, the three of us along with the teachers, the grade level of teachers,
would take turns modeling a particular instructional strategy. Nice. And the fun part
for the teachers was they got to give me [the coach] feedback.
The coach said that the teachers told the coach how “helpful” it was to see what the strategy
“looked like” in their classrooms and with their students. The coach also noted that the feedback
bolstered the coaches’ credibility because they listened to the teachers’ insights and honored
their expertise. Other strategies, mentioned by the remaining six coaches, for establishing their
expertise, included co-planning and sharing instructional resources.
Overall, modeling lessons effectively demonstrated the coaches’ expertise because the
coaches showed the teachers how those lessons benefitted student learning. Modeling lessons
also demonstrated the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching because, in addition to knowing a
variety of content knowledge, the coaches had to consider each school’s context when planning
and choosing what lesson or strategy to model and how to model it in a way that convinced the
teachers to try it in their classroom. Other strategies that demonstrated the coaches’ expertise was
co-planning and sharing instructional resources. Based on the coaches’ perspectives and
experiences, instructional expertise helped with their credibility and encouraged coaching with
teachers, so it is an asset.
Summary of Research Question One—Knowledge Findings
Research question one was “What are the knowledge assets and needs of TCC coaches
related to their capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique contexts of each school?” The
knowledge concept of understanding various coaching models and aligning them with a school’s
unique context is a need because it explicitly supports the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to
each school’s context. The remaining knowledge concepts of communicating with adult learners,

50
building and managing trusting relationships, metacognition, teaching experience, and
instructional expertise are assets.
The knowledge section began by exploring the concept of coaching models. About half
of the thirteen coaches demonstrated their knowledge of at least one coaching model by
providing experiences aligned with that model. Since not all coaches could provide evidence of
their knowledge of coaching models, there is a justifiable need for additional training in this area
to increase the number of coaches who can identify and align coaching models to each school’s
context. The next concept explored communicating with adult learners. The coaches’
experiences provided evidence of their use of various stances to communicate with teachers as
adult learners, identifying this concept as an asset. The following concept examined building and
managing trusting relationships. Based on the interview data, the coaches provided evidence of
their capacity to build and manage trust with teachers. The coaches communicated strong
emotions as they talked about their respect, regard, and value for teachers, teaching, and the
challenges teachers faced, which is an asset and evidence of the coaches’ knowledge of the
elements of trust. The concept of metacognition revealed how reflection supported the growth of
the coaches’ capacity and their understanding of schools’ contexts. The coaches provided
evidence of how their reflection strategies informed their coaching, identifying this concept as an
asset to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching.
The coaches provided insight into their teaching experiences. They shared how
understanding the teachers’ experiences helped the coaches relate to teachers and facilitate
coaching in the schools possible, so it is an asset. Another insight from the coaches is their
instructional expertise. Additionally, the research affirmed the expertise of instructional coaches

51
as an asset to coaches’ capacity (Bean et al., 2015; Blamey et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2008;
Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco, 2003).
Overall, knowledge of coaching models is a need that supports the coaches’ capacity to
align the models to schools’ contexts. The asset of using stances for communicating with adult
learners supports coaches’ efforts to be more strategic when tailoring their coaching to the
unique contexts of the schools they served. The coaches’ trust-building approaches and
metacognition are assets that bolster their coaching experiences with teachers. The coaches’
teaching experiences and their instructional expertise are assets that made them credible with the
teachers and facilitated coaching.
Research Question 2
The findings for the second research question identified the motivation concepts as assets
or needs related to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of each school.
The conceptual framework detailed in Chapter 2 identified three motivation concepts: (a) self-
efficacy (SE), (b) mastery experiences, and (c) causal attributions. Additional insights
highlighted by the coaches finish this section.
Motivation Results
The following sections present the findings related to each motivation concept as shared
by the coaches. Next, the evidence of each concept’s influence on the coaches’ capacity
identified it as an asset or a need. Finally, the research supporting the findings concludes each
section. The coaches used the word “confidence” when referring to their SE.
Self-Efficacy
Several researchers noted that coaches possessed several qualities that made them
efficacious, like an expert knowledge of instruction and coaching and the capacity to navigate

52
the changing nature of coaching (Hall & Simeral, 2008; Knight, 2015; L’ Allier et al., 2010).
While all the coaches perceived themselves as confident, they expressed their confidence
differently. Seven coaches said that their instructional and leadership expertise was the basis for
their perceived confidence. The remaining six coaches said that as their understanding of the
variability of coaching grew, their perceived confidence grew. The coaches revealed that their
perception of their SE influenced their coaching capacity. The following are the qualities to
which the coaches referred when discussing their confidence.
Instructional and Leadership Expertise and Success. Seven coaches said that their
instructional expertise and successes as teachers and leaders made them confident coaches.
Coach J shared that they were confident in their coaching because they impacted their students as
a teacher and as their school’s data leader, so they knew they could help other teachers have the
same impact. Coach G stated their leadership expertise gave them the confidence to approach
coaching challenges because they had previously overcome challenges, so they knew they could
do it again,
I'm very confident ... because of my [leadership] experience. Of course, it's weird
for me to be a coach and [not be able to help a coachee] ... but I accept what I don't
know, and [I have] a willingness to figure that out. So, if I don't know something,
I'm willing to do what it takes to learn it to bring that to my coachee because that’s
what I have done before.
Understanding and Acceptance of the Variability of Coaching. Six coaches spoke
about the connection between their perceived confidence and their understanding and acceptance
of the variability of coaching. It was typical of coaches who understood and accepted the
variability of coaching to describe their experiences as opportunities to grow their capacity. The

53
following are typical examples of how the coaches’ experiences influenced their SE. While
talking about what made them a confident coach, Coach A stated, “I got more confident in my
understanding that coaching is a messy job, [so] the more I coached the more my confidence
increased ... and [the more I] accepted the variability of coaching.” Coach K said that they had a
similar experience as Coach A regarding their confidence, “I think the reason I feel confident is I
know I never will arrive. I know there's always something else to be learned.” Coach M
explained their confidence,
I feel like it's [confidence] something that is definitely an evolution and [I’m]
consistently growing very confident in what I do, and I know that no matter
what's thrown my way and you know there's definitely [going to be something] in
this position, there's things that are probably outside of my realm of comfort. But
I know I have the tools and understanding the cycle and the purpose; I can get
there. It's kind of like, you know, I have all the pieces that are needed.
Coach D shared that once they accepted the variability of coaching, they relaxed more during
coaching, making them more approachable to the teachers and increased their productivity
during coaching, “what I've learned is to go slow ... I feel comfortable, relaxed, and that really
helps during the coaching session.”
In summary, seven of the thirteen coaches interviewed said their successes as teachers
and school leaders gave them the confidence to coach. The remaining six coaches explained that
as their acceptance of the variability of coaching grew, their confidence grew because they
learned from each coaching experience. It seemed as if these coaches’ acceptance of the
variability of coaching allowed them to release an unrealistic expectation of being a coach who
knows and controls everything related to their coaching experiences which, in turn, depressed

54
their SE because the goal was improbable. The acceptance of change also helped the coaches
realistically interpret and prepare for coaching contexts, resulting in more relaxed coaching
experiences and bolstered coaching confidence. An inference worth noting is that the seven
coaches who shared experiences about their instructional expertise used language that declared
their perceived confidence. While the six coaches who shared their experiences with the
variability of coaching used language that described their confidence as growing or evolving.
The evidence of the coaches’ expert knowledge of instruction and coaching and their knowledge
and acceptance of the changing nature of coaching identifies SE as an asset for the coaches’
capacity building.
Mastery Experiences
Coaches expressed the need to have various coaching experiences to build their capacity
to tailor coaching. Bandura (1994) learned that a person’s SE strengthened or diminished based
on what they learned from their past experiences. Seven of the thirteen coaches interviewed
coached frequently (at least once each month of the year of this study). These coaches said that
their coaching experiences gave them more opportunities to learn, apply and hone coaching
strategies, making those experiences mastery experiences that built their confidence. The
remaining six coaches had limited coaching experiences, so they expressed concerns about their
capacity to coach in specific school contexts and a need for more professional development to
build their capacity in that area.
It was typical for coaches with limited experience to feel frustrated, overwhelmed, and
incapable of coaching in a particular school context. For example, Coach E shared an experience
when the teachers resisted coaching and the coach became frustrated when they could not discern

55
how to support the teachers. The coach’s shoulders slumped as they looked straight down and
remembered the experience,
And so, they would do some of the somewhat passive-aggressive or aggressive-
aggressive strategies like giving a test when they knew I was coming into coach or
use a sick day or say they had duty during our [coaching] meeting ... so they couldn't
make the meeting after all. And so, I am just trying to be as flexible as possible,
and I would always try to offer alternatives. And try to get as much coaching, you
know, as I could in with them, but it can be a little frustrating.
Coach H recalled an experience when they felt utterly overwhelmed and incapable of
supporting a particular school,
I had never seen anything like it ... You know, you'd have small children climbing
out of the windows, and there were times when I needed to leave the room because
it wasn't safe. So, again, like I don't know. I don't know who could have, you know,
maybe there are people ... I would have loved to have seen how to be successful [in
that situation].
The coaches with limited experience also mentioned not understanding the process for
accessing more coaching experiences, frustrating them because they felt that that was their
primary method for growing as a coach. Coach M expressed their lack of understanding
regarding the process of receiving coaching assignments, “I had many points that I felt like I
didn't get this process. I don't understand this. Whether it was because of a change in
management or whether it was because of a shift in something.”
It was typical for coaches with mastery experiences to refer to the length of time or the
number of times they coached. For example, Coach K expressed how their confidence grew with

56
their years of experience, “I feel really confident now because I've been doing it for a long time.”
Coach B shared a similar experience, “And then [after struggling the first few years of coaching]
ultimately feeling like I was successful ... just feeling like I had the experience ... was a very big
help to my coaching.”
Bandura (1994) posited that individuals learned from their various experiences, so the
more experiences they had, the more they learned and the stronger their SE became. The
coaches’ interview data supported this theory; the seven coaches who coached frequently
perceived themselves as confident in their capacity to coach because they learned valuable
lessons from those experiences, like applying and sharpening coaching strategies. Conversely,
the six coaches with limited coaching experience did not perceive themselves as confident in
their coaching capacity in certain school contexts because they had little to no previous
experiences on which to draw. The coaches with limited experience also expressed their
frustration with not knowing the process for accessing more coaching experiences that will build
their capacity. This concept is a need based on the research, the coaches’ varying experiences,
and the influence of experiences on the coaches’ SE.
Causal Attributions
Weiner (1985) proposed that a person’s attribution of the cause for an event impacted
their behavior. In other words, coaches’ perceived causal attributions contributed to their
successful or failed coaching experiences. The experience the coaches referenced the most was
about coaching teachers with resistant behavior. Based on their perceptions of this particular type
of coaching experience, six of the coaches interviewed described how their perceived causal
attributions led them to either avoid teachers with resistant behavior or maintain a cordial
relationship with them. In comparison, the remaining seven coaches interviewed gave examples

57
of how their perceived causal attributions helped them overcome teachers’ resistant behavior.
The following are examples of the coaches’ causal attributions.
The coaches’ perceived causal attributions of coaching experiences led them to persist
with coaching teachers with resistant behavior. For example, Coach M explained how they
persisted because they attributed the teacher’s resistant behavior to the teacher’s past experiences
and not to the coach’s action. This example described the causal dimension Weiner (1985) called
locus of control, which focused on a person’s perception of how the cause of experience
originated. In this case, the coach understood the teacher’s behavior manifested outside of the
coach’s actions,
And I really just tried to think about if I was put in that position, what would I want
and how can we go forward. And so, you have the one who is just resistant and
works harder not to do the things [the coach asks] ... I think so many times that it's
a personal thing at that point for them, right. They've been told they need a coach,
so let’s acknowledge that that's how they're feeling, then let's look at students
instead. And what are we seeing, what's working right, and let's build off of that
and leverage that. I think that helps the most in those situations.
Coach K shared how they persisted in coaching a teacher with resistant behavior because
they attributed the resistant behavior as something that could change based on the coach’s
previous experiences with that type of behavior,
You know they act very receptive, and they say what you want to hear, but you
know they're not really reflecting, and they aren't really open to taking the next step.
And that's one where I just, I know, it's just going to take longer.

58
Coach K’s experience was an example of another causal dimension called stability, which
focused on a person’s perception of the variability of a situation over space and time (Weiner,
1985).
The coaches’ perceived causal attributions of coaching experiences also led them to
desist from coaching teachers with resistant behavior. For example, Coach D rolled their eyes as
they recounted an experience when they attributed the cause of the teacher’s behavior to an
external influence or something outside their control. Based on the coach’s attribution, they
decided to maintain a cordial relationship with the teacher with resistant behavior and to continue
supporting the teachers who wanted coaching. “He was being resistant in that passive-aggressive
way where he sat down and agreed with everything [I said] and could regurgitate everything
research says, but then he was going to do it [whatever he wanted to do].” Coach D’s experience
was an example of the last causal dimension called controllability that focused on the coach’s
perception about whether they could control the cause.
Based on their perceived causal attributions of teachers’ resistant behavior and their
experiences overcoming coaching challenges, seven coaches persisted in coaching while six
coaches desisted from coaching. Although the six coaches who desisted from coaching perceived
that they were not responsible for the teachers’ resistant behavior, they still felt frustrated
because they did not understand the context of their coaching challenges and felt unable or
unwilling to tackle the challenges. An inference worth noting is that the six coaches who desisted
from coaching also perceived their confidence as growing, whereas five of the seven coaches
who persisted in coaching, declared their confidence. Another inference worth noting is that two
of the seven coaches who persisted in coaching expressed having the capacity to develop strong
relationships with teachers despite their perception of their growing confidence, which they said

59
accounted for their capacity to overcome their challenges. Based on the research and the
coaches’ experiences, causal attributions are a need for coaches’ motivation, especially since the
coaches’ perceived causal attributions directly influence their responses to coaching experiences,
thus impacting their capacity.
Additional Insights
All the coaches expressed a belief in coaching. They stated that their belief stemmed
from their enjoyment of the challenge of coaching, the feeling that they helped teachers and
students achieve, and the opportunity to witness those achievements. All the coaches used words
like “love,” “feeling good,” “chills,” “impact,” and “powerful” to describe their belief in
coaching. The following statements offered evidence of the coaches’ beliefs.
Coach F said excitedly,
I love it! Oh my god! I never thought that I would love hard work ... it's the hardest
work that you'll ever love. I love a good challenge. I love filling gaps. I love asking
questions. I love making people think. I love reflecting, and I love watching people
win.
Coach B shared a similar sentiment, “I love that idea that we are actually impacting the future. I
love it, it turns me on. I'm like getting nerdy teacher goosebumps just talking about it.” Coach J
shared,
I guess in a way it's selfish because it [coaching] really is what fires me up. I mean,
like I said when I talk about that stuff. I get chills, I still to this day, like to be able
to have a teacher who was just like I am not feeling it. And then, all of a sudden,
they have that moment [where they appreciate coaching]. It's like, Wow, man. That
feels good, you know, without being in the classroom myself. It's a way that I can

60
indirectly impact you while teaching and have them turn around and be effective. I
need that challenge, and coaching is challenging.
Coach E shared, “When it's working, it's just so powerful. I also feel like I'm adding
value to the success of the scholars [students] on those campuses, which I find quite rewarding.”
Along the same line of thought as Coach E, Coach M stated,
Because, you know, all it takes is having one great day, and that's the thing that
feels right. And being able to continue ... I mean, that's always the natural path for
me, and I just really think our students just deserve so much. So, I think that drives
me every single day.
In summary, all the coaches described their belief in coaching as a motivator for coaching
because of the positive feelings the coaches experience when they help teachers and their
students. This belief in coaching is another reason why coaches persist in coaching, especially
during coaching challenges. The coaches’ belief in coaching also focused them on their coaching
goal of improving teacher instructional practices to increase student achievement. Therefore, the
belief in coaching is an asset.
Summary of Research Question Two—Motivation Findings
Research question two was “What are the motivation assets and needs of coaches related
to their ability to tailor coaching services to the unique contexts of each school?” The motivation
concept of SE and the coaches’ belief in coaching are assets for coaching. The coaches’
perception of their confidence and their belief in coaching to affect change in teachers’
instructional practices directly affected their coaching capacity, meaning if the coaches believed
they would succeed using coaching, they would succeed using coaching. The remaining
motivation concepts of mastery coaching experiences and causal attributions are needs for the

61
coaches’ capacity. About half of the coaches did not have enough coaching experience to
develop their coaching, impacting their confidence in their capacity. Based on limited
experiences and the coaches’ causal perceived attributions, these coaches desisted from
coaching, depressing their confidence in their capacity.
The motivation section began by examining the coaches’ self-efficacy. Although SE is an
asset for coaching, it is necessary to continue to strengthen coaches’ SE since SE is a dynamic
concept, changing with each coach and with each context. Seven of the thirteen coaches
interviewed shared examples of how their instructional and leadership expertise and successes
bolstered their confidence, while the remaining six coaches shared how their understanding and
acceptance of the variability of coaching helped their perceived confidence grow. It seems as if
these six coaches grew from their understanding and acceptance of the variability of coaching
because it helped them accept and plan for the reality of constantly changing school contexts. An
inference worth noting is that the seven coaches who shared experiences about their instructional
expertise declared their perceived confidence. While the six coaches who shared their experience
with the variability of coaching described their confidence as growing or evolving.
Regarding mastery experiences, there is evidence supporting the need for all coaches to
have access to coaching experiences because it is the primary method for coaches to develop
their coaching capacity. The coaches who perceived themselves as having various coaching
experiences spoke of how their years of successful experiences and overcoming challenges
influenced their SE. In contrast, the coaches with limited experiences shared frustrating and
overwhelming coaching experiences that depressed their SE because they did not know how to
overcome those experiences. Additionally, the coaches with limited experience were unsure how
to access more coaching experiences to bolster their capacity and thus, their SE.

62
The coaches’ experiences demonstrate the need for coaches to understand the influence
of their perceived causal attributions on their behavior. Seven coaches shared experiences of how
their attributions of teachers’ resistant behavior motivated them to persist in coaching the
teachers through their behaviors, resulting in improved coach-teacher relationships and the
coach’s strengthened SE. Whereas six coaches shared experiences of how their attributions of
teachers’ resistant behavior demotivated them, so they desisted from coaching the teachers with
resistant behaviors. The coaches stated that they did not understand the context of their coaching
challenges and felt unable or unwilling to tackle the challenges. An inference worth noting is the
connection between the coaches’ response to their attributions and their SE. The coaches who
desisted coaching teachers with resistant behaviors described their confidence as growing,
whereas the coaches who overcame the teachers’ resistant behaviors declared their confidence.
Another inference worth noting is that two coaches who described their confidence as growing
overcame coaching challenges because of their capacity to develop strong relationships with
teachers.
The coaches’ belief in coaching is the coaches’ addition to the motivation section. The
coaches identified their belief in coaching as an asset. They communicated how coaching
impacted teachers’ instructional practices and increased student achievement. They explained
that supporting the improvement of the achievement of teachers and their students made them
feel good and motivated them to persist through their challenging coaching experiences.
Altogether, the assets of SE and a belief in coaching strengthen coaches’ capacity. Whereas the
needs of having mastery coaching experiences and understanding the influence of perceived
causal attributions inhibit coaches’ capacity, resulting in demotivated coaches and diminished
coaching impact.

63
Research Question 3
The findings for the third research question identified the organizational support concepts
as assets or needs related to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique context of each
school. The conceptual framework detailed in Chapter 2 identified four organizational support
concepts: (a) readiness for coaching; (b) a process for establishing clear roles, responsibilities,
and goals for coaching; (c) a process that supports coaching implementation; and (d) a process of
assessment and evaluation to track and monitor coaching goals. The coaches offered additional
insights, concluding this section.
Organizational Support Findings
The following section presents the findings related to each organizational support
concept as shared by the coaches. Next, the evidence of each concept’s influence on the coaches’
capacity identified it as an asset or a need. Finally, the research supporting the findings
concluded this section.
Readiness for Coaching
Snow et al. (2005) described schools’ readiness for coaching as a school’s awareness of
their need to improve, a willingness to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process
about school improvement, and a school staff’s willingness to learn new ways to improve. Four
of the coaches interviewed either spoke about experiences with schools that were ready for
coaching, or they did not mention readiness for coaching. The remaining nine coaches said a
school’s lack of readiness for coaching hindered their capacity to coach.
The following examples were typical for the coaches who worked at schools with a lack
of readiness for coaching. Coach D shared an experience about how difficult it was to coach in
schools where the leadership mandated coaching, meaning the teachers did not have any input in

64
the decision to be coached. The coach rolled their eyes as they explained the school’s lack of
readiness for coaching,
The schools have been somewhat made to, required to go through coaching. And I
always feel [from the teachers and administrators] ‘whatever’ when I meet with
them. The administrators or the teachers are very nice, very considerate and we talk
through things; we discuss options for them to use but then what happens from the
time we meet to the next time we meet, very little is implemented in the class.
Coach K shared an experience where coaching was part of a teacher’s mandatory
improvement plan, impacting the teacher’s job contract and halting the coaching. The coach
explained how coaching stopped,
The teacher was placed on a growth plan. Well, they assigned me to this person ...
And, you know, one day during a coaching conversation ... I was just asking
questions and not giving directives, he felt really insecure about that [questions]
and he thought it was a ploy to get him fired. So, he actually took leave for eight
weeks. And then I was informed by the principal who said to me, ‘Hey, you really
scared this person away, which made me feel horrible’.
Coaches E and J spoke about how the disagreement about coaching between school
administrators and teachers inhibited coaching. Coach E offered a typical example of this type of
disagreement, resulting in both groups focusing more on each other than school improvement,
I was never able to crack through the culture. I wouldn't want to blame anybody but
myself for the lack of success, but I didn't get through to the cultural divide [the
difference in opinion about coaching between the administration and the teachers]
that was preventing that school from finding more success than they had.

65
Coach J cited “issues between the school district and the teachers’ union” as hindrances to their
coaching.
The following example was typical for the coaches who experienced coaching at schools
that were ready for coaching. Coach M said,
They [the school] didn't have a lot … And, you know, just, they were so thirsty
[they wanted support]. You know … being able to watch and see them shape, you
know, help them shape their behaviors to raise their level of proficiency for
teaching and seeing the impact on their students [was incredible].
Overall, four coaches encountered schools that were ready for coaching or did not
mention readiness for coaching. The coaches said that the teachers received the coach and
implemented the coaches’ recommendations, resulting in goal achievement. The remaining nine
coaches shared experiences where the lack of readiness for coaching inhibited or halted
coaching. The nine coaches said that the lack of readiness came in the form of mandated teacher
coaching, the disagreement between teachers and leaders about the need for coaching, or
schools’ staff who focused on issues other than school improvement, all of which resulted in low
coaching participation, teachers exhibiting resistant behavior, and discontinued coaching. Based
on the research and interview data, this concept is a need for supporting the coaches’ capacity.
A Process for Establishing Clear Roles, Responsibilities, and Goals for Coaching
Blamey et al. (2008) defined role clarity as the information coaches need about the goal
of coaching, their part in goal achievement, and how to achieve their goal. The varying
experiences regarding establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and goals identified this
organizational support concept as an area of need. Coach M emphasized the importance of role
clarity to their capacity to coach, “I think that you definitely need to have a great, strong

66
understanding of [your role], not only what you've been assigned to, but also the bigger picture
[the goal] so you can prepare for your assignment.”
When asked if the coaches were aware of their roles or involved in establishing their role
or the coaching goals, four of the thirteen coaches interviewed described some involvement in
the process. Coach C shared her experience with the process,
Okay, so whenever a new coaching assignment comes down. Usually, it's hey ...
let's have a conversation about the school and ... They want to make sure that I feel
comfortable with the situation that they're trying. They're transparent about what's
going on. They tell me a little bit about the coaching assignment, and I get to ask
questions and make suggestions.
The remaining nine coaches cited experiences when they were not aware of their roles or
the process of establishing their roles, responsibilities, or school goals. However, five of the nine
coaches who were not aware of their roles either initiated conversations with TCC or school
leadership to obtain the information they needed to clarify their coaching roles. Coach G
described their method for starting a coaching assignment without receiving information about
their role or coaching goals,
I create a situation where I understand the administration’s general expectations of
what the coaching focus could be, but my coaching with the teacher does not begin
and stop there, I'm also there to meet that individual teachers’ needs, so I do both.
The other four of the nine coaches who were not aware of their roles and did not seek the
information themselves felt inhibited. Coach H shrugged their shoulders while they talked about
the questions they still had about an upcoming coaching assignment,

67
So [how do I] connect with the principal to find out what’s the principal's vision ...
how am I going to be assigned to work ... what is it ... how can I support the
principal in the school. What are the school goals, and how can I support the
principal?
Coach I shared what happened during a coaching assignment when there were no clear
coaching roles or goals, “the school had no goals nor any data on which to develop goals with
the school leadership”, resulting in the teachers being “all over the place, and none of that
necessarily aimed at improving their [the teacher’s] professional skill level or knowledge.”
In summary, the coaches provided evidence of the need for a process to establish clear
roles, responsibilities, and goals for coaching. The four coaches who received clear roles and the
five coaches who obtained role clarity themselves corroborate the research of Blamey et al.
(2008) stating that the information about their roles, responsibilities, and goals provided the
coaches with the direction and purpose of coaching, informing how they tailor coaching.
Conversely, Lynch and Ferguson (2014) found that the amount of ambiguity surrounding the role
of coaches diminished their capacity. The four coaches who experienced role ambiguity also
documented the research by stating that they struggled without role clarity or access to it,
meaning they were not sure of their expectations, resulting in their frustration. These coaches
also said that it is TCC’s responsibility to clarify coaches’ roles or to provide a process for them
to establish their coaching roles, responsibilities, and goals.
Additionally, the coaches’ experiences documented a connection between their perceived
confidence and their efforts to achieve role clarity. Coaches who perceived themselves as
confident were also the coaches who were aware of, had access to, or took steps to get
information about their roles. Coaches who perceived their confidence as growing were not

68
aware of, did not have access to or blamed TCC for their lack of information about their roles.
The descriptions from the coaches regarding how they accessed the information about their roles,
responsibilities, and coaching goals denote that access was person-oriented instead of process-
oriented, meaning the coaches must know whom to ask rather than referring to a process to
access information about their roles, responsibilities, and coaching goals.
A Process That Supports Coaching Implementation
Poglinco et al. (2003) found that professional development (PD) designers had to address
several factors to support coaching, like providing ongoing support to existing coaches as new
implementation challenges arose and adjusting and differentiating learning to meet coaches’
needs. Coaching support varied among the coaches. The following examples include differing
experiences with accessing information like school contextual data, the frequency of coaching
sessions, and resources to support coaching. When reflecting on accessing the school data they
needed for a coaching assignment, Coach C noted that TCC determined and provided the school
data TCC thought the coach needed to prepare for a coaching assignment, resulting in the coach
receiving the information they needed when they needed it. However, Coach M shared an
experience of when TCC did not respond to their request for school data, so they took the
initiative to collect the school data they needed to prepare for their coaching assignment. The
coach noted that it took some of their coaching time to collect the data, but the coach thought the
time was well spent to understand the school’s context.
Coach I shared an experience about how the frequency of their coaching session inhibited
their capacity to meet the coaching goals,
The less successful ones [assignments] were the ones, [where] I was a TCC person
assigned to [coach] maybe once a month if we were lucky. We tried for that, that

69
was kind of the goal, but it didn't always work out, you know, it was kind of like,
come to town for, you know, five to eight days and be on campus, you know, right,
and that’s it. So those felt less successful.
Coach J shared how knowing the frequency of coaching helped them prepare. The coach
spoke about competing school initiatives, reducing teachers' availability for coaching. “So, I
always look to see what the other [school] initiatives are. And making sure that I'm best prepared
to understand the whole scope of what these teachers are dealing with.”
Coach D shared an experience when they spent hours looking for resources to meet a
school’s changing needs because they were unaware of TCC’s resources,
We were supposed to be working on developing leadership skills within teachers
so that they can take over the role as coaches and instructional practices and
strategies with the rest of their staff. But with the COVID coming through, the two
ladies that pay said [the school leaders], ‘but we really need something on social-
emotional learning’. And I think, oh boy. That is probably not in my bailiwick so
much as regular curriculum instruction. So, what I had to do, I probably spent 15-
20 hours doing research. I cannot believe that these two people were so excited.
That I was going through and showing them videos and stuff that they could use
with their staff, they were [talking about] all they could do [with the resources]. It
was like I was getting all excited because they were so excited.
Even though the amount of time Coach D spent finding resources was not typical of other
coaches’ experiences, the example was typical of the additional effort the coaches said
they expended to find resources that aligned to the context of each school.

70
Overall, the coaches identified support for coaching implementation as a need. All the
coaches shared a variety of experiences regarding the level of support available to them,
including accessing school contextual data, the frequency of coaching sessions, and resources to
support coaching. The coaches with more coaching experiences were aware of and could access
TCC’s support whereas, the coaches with limited coaching experiences were not aware of TCC’s
support, so they felt they needed more support during coaching implementation. This support is
necessary because schools’ contexts and coaching goals often change during coaching
implementation (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco et al., 2003).
A Process for Assessment and Evaluation to Track and Monitor Coaching Goals
Lowenhaupt et al. (2014) said that without knowing the influences on coaches’ work, it
was difficult to provide coaches the support they needed to be successful. Assessment and
evaluation data provide TCC with the knowledge they need to support their coaches’ success.
The coaches’ experiences with assessment and evaluation varied. The coaches used the term
feedback to describe the form of assessment they often encountered. Nine of the thirteen coaches
interviewed said that they had room to grow in their coaching capacity and noted that feedback
could help them grow as coaches. The remaining four coaches also felt they had room to grow
but preferred to collaborate with their colleagues instead of seeking feedback from TCC.
Additionally, eleven of the thirteen coaches said that they did not receive feedback about their
coaching specifically or did not receive feedback in enough time to adjust their coaching. One
remaining coach received coaching feedback that they considered useful, and the other coach has
not received any feedback.

71
The following experiences provide the variation of the types of feedback the coaches
encountered. Coach K, the one coach who said they received feedback that they considered
useful, said,
[name of observer] specifically came and observed me ... talk[ed] to me beforehand,
about what to expect. And then ... came into the school with me .... walked classes
with me … saw me lead some coaching conversations and then ... did what I value
most ... didn't just say, here's what you need to do, [instead] … asked questions.
And from that, I determined really where I needed to grow ... it was done in a safe
way where ... I felt like the feedback also supported my strengths and honored what
I did. And it wasn't just you needed to do this and grow. So, I think that [feedback]
was instrumental.
Coach I commented on how their coaching feedback was limited because other topics
were a part of that feedback session. The coach said they did not receive any feedback that they
could use to improve their coaching,
Once in a while ... like we would have monthly meetings, but it really wasn't
meetings about getting feedback from us at all, or questions [which he wanted]. It's
more about, you know, do this, and don't do that, you know you screwed this up. It
wasn't an exchange. And it was typically more about the logistical, clerical, you
know, record compliance aspect of my coaching, not the actual coaching.
Coach I continued by sharing how they wanted feedback to help them self-assess their
coaching,
No, I have not received [feedback], and I have actually asked, and I'm not sure that
it's against protocol or not ... I have asked ... to provide specific feedback because I

72
... definitely want to grow and get better and wanted to make sure that they [the
school] were getting what they needed, but I never received that, so I'm not sure if
that's, you know, something that can actually be done or if it's discouraged.
Coach J was the one coach who said that they did not receive any feedback from TCC.
The coach said that they tracked and monitored coaching goals by soliciting feedback directly
from the school’s administration since TCC had not monitored their coaching. Even though, the
coach received feedback from the school’s administrator, they still wanted to know if they were
meeting TCC’s expectations.
Coach B shared a typical sentiment of coaches who preferred to get feedback from their
colleagues instead of TCC,
The PD modules together with the thought partners that I have around me [support
their coaching]. People who do the same work that I do, who I can rely on to ask
questions and feel comfortable. I'm going to tell you there's people that I would
never approach or ask questions in this company because I don't have that trust
level with them.
Even though the coaches submitted logs of their work, many assumed that their logs were
not read. The coaches thought that their logs could have been another type of feedback TCC
could have provided them. Coach A’s experience summarized the coaches’ sentiment regarding
their logs, “I don't think they [the logs] get read.”
The researcher’s examination of the coaching logs uncovered inconsistencies. Although
each log included similar formats, the content describing what occurred during the coaching
sessions varied. Each log’s format contained demographic information like the school’s name,
the coaching date, the length of time for the coaching session, the teacher’s name, and the

73
coach’s name. The content that varied among the logs included the focus or the purpose of the
coaching session; the coaching session strategies, outcomes, and goals; and a delineation
between what the coach did and what the teacher did to achieve the coaching outcomes and
goals.
In summary, based on the literature and interview data, the coaches identified a need for
an assessment and evaluation process to track and monitor coaching goals. Lowenhaupt et al.
(2014) corroborated the coaches’ need for feedback by stating that coaches needed to be aware
of all aspects of their coaching if they were to be successful. The coaches shared the part of the
process with which they encountered: receiving feedback about their coaching. The coaches’
experiences varied from receiving useful feedback to not receiving any feedback. Additionally,
the coaches thought TCC missed an opportunity to provide feedback through the coaching logs.
The coaches said that they understood how feedback can build or inhibit their capacity.
Additional Insights
Coaches expressed the need to align the length of a coaching assignment with a school’s
readiness for coaching. They said the length of an assignment impacted how the coaches
prepared and responded to the unique needs of a school’s context. The following coaching
experiences shared why aligning the length of an assignment to the school’s readiness for
coaching was important. Coach B said, “it [gaining the respect of a teacher assigned to them]
took me a year and a half. But I think at the year and a half point, I saw a little crack in the door.”
Coach G shared how much time their experience required,
I keep at it, and I think I've gained a level of respect from them, and I slowly get
them to think a little more about what I'm suggesting, and maybe they implement

74
it. Maybe they don't, but I found it [success] again when I'm able to have that
extended relationship with teachers. It just might take a full year.
Duration of coaching is an identified need among coaches, especially when either all or
parts of a school’s context are unknown, not ready for coaching, or change during coaching
implementation. The coaches expressed the desire to have more coaching time with school
contexts that had teachers with resistant behaviors, were not ready for coaching, and had diverse
learners among the teaching staff who needed more time to process new information or to apply
that information to their practice. Marsh et al. (2008) spoke directly to the vital relationship
between the duration of coaching and coaching goal achievement.
Summary of Research Question Three—Organizational Support Findings
Research question three was “What are the organizational support assets and needs of
TCC coaches related to their capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique contexts of each
school?” All the organizational support findings presented in this study are needs because they
directly impact the coaches’ capacity to prepare for the various school contexts they encounter.
The organizational support section began with an examination of the concept of readiness
for coaching. Nine of the thirteen coaches shared evidence of the lack of a school’s readiness for
coaching, resulting in coaching teachers with resistant behaviors, low coaching participation, and
ultimately, unattained coaching goals. The remaining four coaches spoke about experiences with
schools that were ready for coaching or did not mention readiness for coaching during their
interviews. The coaches experienced goal achievement because the teachers perceived the coach
as part of their school’s improvement. School readiness for coaching is an identified need for the
success of coaching.

75
The second organizational support concept analyzed TCC’s process for establishing clear
roles, responsibilities, and goals for coaching. This support was an identified need because the
awareness of and involvement in establishing coaching roles, responsibilities, and goals varied
among the coaches. Four coaches received the information they need for role clarity. Five
coaches obtained the information about their roles themselves, resulting in role clarity. The
remaining four coaches did not receive the information they needed for role clarity and did not
obtain that information for themselves, making them feel ill-prepared to tailor coaching.
Additionally, the interview data revealed that accessing coaching information was person-
oriented, meaning if the coaches did not know whom to ask for role clarity, their role would
remain unclear, frustrating them.
The third concept of organizational support studied TCC’s process for supporting
coaching implementation. This support was also an identified need because coaching support
varied among the coaches and schools’ contexts. The evidence demonstrated variance regarding
the coaches’ awareness of TCC's support during coaching implementation. Overall, TCC’s
coaches want to be made aware of and have access to all coaching processes.
The fourth concept of organizational support explored TCC’s assessment and evaluation
process, another identified need. Feedback was the one form of monitoring the coaches
encountered often. The evidence showed that the coaches had varying experiences with
feedback. One coach said they received helpful feedback. Another coach did not receive any
feedback. The remaining coaches said that they received feedback that was either not timely or
not useful. The coaches understand how feedback benefits their capacity to tailor coaching
throughout implementation and to remain aligned with each school’s context and goals. The

76
coaching logs, the records of the coaches’ work experiences, revealed inconsistencies with the
descriptions of the coaching purpose, strategies, outcomes, and goals.
The fifth concept of organizational support, provided by the coaches’ insights, explored
the duration of coaching assignments. The coaches identified this support as a need because it
was evident that additional coaching time could help achieve coaching goals within school
contexts that were unknown, changed, or not ready for coaching.

77
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to learn about the influential factors on The
Coaching Company’s (TCC) instructional coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique
contexts of schools from the coaches’ perspectives to understand how to support their capacity
building. This study used qualitative research methods to answer the following questions:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to tailor
coaching services to the unique context of each school?
2. What are the motivational assets and needs of TCC coaches related to their capacity to
tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting TCC coaches and their
capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?
Chapter 4 presented the data analysis of the coaches’ interviews and their coaching logs.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational support (KMO) factors related to the capacity
building of TCC’s instructional coaches helped to categorize the data. This chapter starts with a
discussion of the findings that provide the basis for the subsequent recommendations. Then, an
overview of an integrated implementation and evaluation plan that will monitor and adjust the
recommendations’ implementation follows. The chapter continues with a detailed description of
the integrated implementation and evaluation plan, based on program theory or the logic model,
including its purpose, goals, its evaluation plan (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Afterward, the
limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for future research conclude the chapter.
Findings
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model provided the framework for this study and aligned
the findings in Chapter 4 to the literature presented in Chapter 2. This section summarized the

78
analysis of each KMO factor and its respective findings as they related to the assets and needs of
the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of the schools they served. The
knowledge findings discussed the coaches’ capacity to use coaching models; communication
stances, approaches and identities with adult learners; trust-building elements and approaches;
and how that knowledge directly impacted the coaches’ capacity to align those models, stances,
approaches, and trust elements with each school’s context. Next, the motivation findings
examined the coaches’ self-efficacy (SE), mastery experiences, causal attributions, and how each
motivation factor influenced how the coaches perceived their SE. Lastly, the organizational
support findings considered readiness for coaching and various processes that support coaching
implementation and evaluation. Each finding is a necessary support for the coaches’ capacity
because they supply the data, processes, and feedback the coaches need to plan for each school’s
context.
Knowledge Findings
Clark and Estes (2008) described a person’s knowledge of their job as the “who, what,
where, when why and how to achieve their goals” (p. 44). The findings indicated which
knowledge concepts were the assets or needs related to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching
to the unique contexts of schools. The first knowledge finding identified the need for coaches to
understand various coaching models and to align those models to each school’s context. Bengo
(2016) discussed the importance of understanding a variety of coaching models to address the
diverse needs of teachers. Approximately half of the coaches demonstrated an understanding of
coaching models, but none of the coaches mentioned aligning the models to schools’ contexts.
The lack of knowledge about coaching models and how to align them to schools’ contexts
inhibited coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to schools’ contexts.

79
The following knowledge finding indicated that the coaches’ counted their capacity to
communicate with adult learners as an asset. Ippolito (2016) stated that coaches used
communication to facilitate coaching by differentiating their stances based on a school’s context,
a teacher’s disposition, and a coach’s persona. All the coaches shared experiences showing
evidence of their understanding of adult learning and how that knowledge helped them tailor
their communication to the teacher’s disposition.
Another knowledge finding highlighted the coaches’ capacity to build and manage
relationships as an asset. The coaches identified and adjusted their coaching stance or identity to
the teacher’s disposition to convince teachers to participate in coaching which was a strategy
suggested by Aguilar (2013) and Rainville and Jones (2008). Additionally, the coaches expressed
their regard, respect, and value for teachers, their work, and their challenges, making the teachers
feel comfortable, valued, and respected by the coaches and facilitating strong coaching
relationships.
The following finding identified metacognition, a type of reflection, as a knowledge
asset. Reflection is the ability to think about one’s behaviors, to identify areas of strength,
opportunities to develop and use that information to build one’s capacity (Parson, 2018). All the
coaches found reflection valuable because it provided them with the information they needed to
adjust their coaching to each school’s context.
A knowledge finding based on the coaches’ insights was the asset of teaching experience.
There were ten of the thirteen coaches who shared that their teaching experiences made them
relatable to teachers, gave them a unique perspective into the teachers’ experiences, and
encouraged coaching. The remaining two coaches credited their leadership experience with the
capacity to imagine how coaching could benefit the schools assigned to them. The coaches felt

80
that without their teaching and leadership experience, they would have as much of an impact on
coaching goals.
Another knowledge finding based on the coaches’ insights was the asset of instructional
expertise. There were seven of the thirteen coaches who stated that they had to prove their
expertise to teachers before coaching them. These coaches demonstrated their expertise by
modeling lessons or strategies. Successfully modeled lessons or strategies made the coaches
credible with teachers because the coaches provided evidence of their content knowledge and
their capacity to tailor their planning and delivery of lessons and strategies based on the school’s
context.
Motivation Findings
Clark and Estes (2008) described workers’ motivation as a necessary component of goal
achievement. The findings indicated which motivation concepts were the assets or needs related
to the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of schools. The first
motivational finding of SE, or confidence, was an identified asset. Several researchers
documented that efficacious coaches possessed qualities that demonstrated their expert
knowledge of instruction and coaching and their capacity to understand and operate within the
changing nature of schools’ contexts (Hall & Simeral, 2008; Knight, 2015; L’ Allier et al., 2010).
There were six coaches who based their declared SE on their instructional and leadership
expertise. There were seven coaches who based their growing SE on their understanding and
acceptance of the variability of coaching. Larsen and Allen (2015) found that without self-
efficacy, coaches experienced coaching failure because they could not overcome challenging
coaching experiences.

81
The subsequent motivation finding discovered the need for all coaches to have mastery
coaching experiences. Bandura (1994) supported the need for mastery coaching experiences by
stating that individuals learned from their various experiences, so the more experiences they had,
the stronger their SE became and the more likely they would achieve their goals. Approximately
half of the coaches had limited coaching experiences, reducing their confidence. Several
researchers documented the necessity for experience with coaching to increase coaches’ capacity
(Anderson et al., 2014; Calo et al., 2015; Finkelstein, 2016).
The following motivation finding identified the need for coaches to understand how their
causal attributions influenced their coaching. There were six coaches who explained their
frustrations with coaching teachers with resistant behavior and not understanding why they failed
to successfully coach them. The capacity to identify the cause of a coaching experience then
address the cause to affect coaching is imperative to strengthening coaches’ confidence
(Rainville & Jones, 2008; Weiner, 1985).
The coaches’ belief in coaching was the last motivation finding, based on coaches’
insights. The interview data identified it as an asset because all coaches believed in the positive
impact coaching has on teachers’ improved instructional practice and their students’
achievement, motivating the coaches.
Organizational Support Findings
Readiness for coaching was the first organizational support finding identified as a need.
Snow et al. (2005) discovered that successful coaching implementation started with schools’
readiness for coaching, resulting in high participation in coaching and sustained school
improvement. However, nine coaches shared experiences of inhibited coaching because the

82
teachers were unaware of coaching in their schools or did not want to be coached, resulting in
teachers’ resistant behaviors and low coaching participation.
Another need for coaching was a process for establishing clear coaching goals, roles, and
responsibilities. There were four coaches who experienced role clarity because of TCC’s support,
five coaches experienced role clarity because they obtained it themselves, and four coaches
experienced role ambiguity because they did not have any support or initiative, frustrating them.
The research detailed how coaches require clear goals and roles to inform and prepare for
coaching, impacting how they perceive and present themselves as coaches (Blamey et al., 2008;
IRA, 2006).
Another organizational support finding was the need for coaches to be supported while
implementing coaching. Coaches described the need for support in accessing schools’ contextual
data, the frequency of coaching sessions, and resources. The literature validated the coaches’
experiences, stating that many support structures need to be in place before coaching and
throughout its implementation if it is to be effective (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Poglinco et al.,
2003). The coaches expressed the need for support when tailoring coaching to schools’ contexts,
especially when coaching goals and contexts change during the coaching assignment, impacting
coaching results.
The next finding was the need to assess and evaluate coaching. Receiving feedback about
their coaching was the main form of assessment the coaches experienced. However, the coaches
expressed experiences with feedback that was not timely or not useful. The coaches understood
how feedback informed their capacity to tailor coaching to schools’ contexts. Lowenhaupt et al.
(2014) corroborated the coaches’ need for feedback by stating that coaches need to be aware of
all aspects of their coaching if they were to be successful.

83
The last organizational support finding came from the coaches’ insights. It was the need
to align the duration of a coaching assignment with a school’s readiness for coaching. The
coaches expressed the desire to have more coaching time with schools that were not ready for
coaching so they could achieve their coaching goals. Marsh et al. (2008) spoke directly to the
vital relationship between the duration of coaching and coaching goal achievement.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study revealed knowledge, motivation, and organizational support
factors identified as assets or needs related to TCC’s coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the
unique contexts of the schools they served. Specific knowledge findings centered on a need for
systemic knowledge about the alignment of coaching models to schools’ contexts. The identified
assets for building the coaches’ capacity were communication stances and approaches with adult
learners; trust-building elements, approaches, and identities; metacognition; teaching and
leadership experience; and instructional expertise. These assets helped the coaches connect and
relate to teachers by being trustworthy and credible. The motivation findings included the need
for coaches to have mastery experiences and to understand the influence of their causal
attributions on their responses to coaching experiences. In addition, the assets of the coaches’ SE
and their belief in coaching helped them persist in overcoming coaching challenges. Lastly, the
organizational support findings revealed needs related to readiness for coaching; an awareness of
and access to a process for establishing roles, responsibilities, and goals; an awareness of and
access to a process of coaching implementation support; and an awareness of and access to an
assessment and evaluation process to track and monitor coaching goals; and aligning the duration
of coaching assignments to schools’ context. Without these processes, the coaches could not

84
prepare for coaching in the unique contexts of the schools they served. Based on these findings,
descriptions of the specific recommendations for practice follows.
Recommendation 1: Provide Coaches Modified PD Training to Include the Conceptual and
Procedural Knowledge of Coaching Models so Coaches Will Align the Models to Schools’
Contexts
The knowledge findings of this study indicated that about half of the coaches did not
understand or were not aware of coaching models and how to align them with schools’ contexts,
hindering their capacity to tailor coaching. The findings revealed that TCC offers training to its
coaches, but it does not provide coaching-focused training that meets the individual needs of its
coaches. The research validated the coaches’ need to know a wide range of coaching models
when supporting various school contexts (Aguilar, 2013; Anderson et al., 2014; Bengo, 2016;
Ippolito, 2010; Rainville & Jones, 2008). Additionally, Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that
workers need to know exactly what they are supposed to do to achieve their goals. In line with
the literature review and based on the interview data, training coaches on various coaching
models will provide them with the knowledge and practice they need to align coaching models
with each school’s context while providing them more coaching-focused training within TCC.
The type of training that will build the coaches’ capacity involves conceptual and
procedural knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) described conceptual knowledge as understanding how
essential elements of knowledge connect and function as complex forms of knowledge. The
researcher also described procedural knowledge as the understanding of how to perform a task.
The combination of teaching the conceptual knowledge of coaching models with the procedural
knowledge of coaching models in the form of guided practice and constructive feedback will
build the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching. Therefore, the recommendation is for TCC’s

85
coaching leadership (CL) to modify their existing PD training to include the conceptual and
procedural knowledge of coaching models and how to align that knowledge of models to
schools’ contexts.
Segmenting the training into two parts will differentiate the learning for coaches. The
conceptual part of the training will accommodate the coaches who only want the knowledge
about coaching models because they feel comfortable aligning that knowledge to schools’
contexts. The procedural part of the training will accommodate the coaches who only want the
practice and feedback on aligning models to schools’ contexts. The complete training would
include both parts.
Recommendation 2: Produce and Implement a Form to Guide the Coaches’ Reflections
About the Causes of Their Coaching Experiences so They Learn and Grow From Those
Experiences, Creating Mastery Experiences
The motivation findings of this study indicated that six of the thirteen coaches were
frustrated because they could not overcome the challenge of successfully coaching teachers with
resistant behavior and did not understand why they failed. Krathwohl (2002) stated that
metacognition, of which reflection is a part, is the knowledge about thinking and an awareness
and knowledge of one’s knowledge to benefit growth and development. According to Bandura
(1994), information motivates individuals to persist in achieving their goals. In line with these
constructs, based on the interview data, and the coaches’ asset of reflection along with their
belief in coaching, the recommendation is for the CL to produce and implement a reflection form
with a structured set of questions and prompts. Using this form will cause the coaches to reflect
on and learn from their experiences, giving them the information they need to persist through
their challenges.

86
This form will use the three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability, and
controllability as the foci of the reflection. The coaches will use the form to guide their reflection
about one challenging coaching experience at a time by responding to questions and prompts
about the cause(s) of the challenging experience, if or how the challenging experience changed,
what changed the experience, and if those efforts succeeded in overcoming the challenge. The
coaches can also use this form to reflect on successful coaching experiences. Lastly, using this
form will make the coaches aware of their responses in various school contexts so the coaches
can use this information to inform and adjust their coaching.
Recommendation 3: Produce and Implement a Coaching Assignment Process That Makes
Coaching Assignment Decisions Transparent so Coaches Have Access to More Coaching
Experiences
The motivation findings of this study also indicated that six coaches shared their
frustration about their limited coaching experiences and their lack of understanding about the
process for accessing more experiences, both of which the coaches thought hindered their
capacity. All the coaches noted that coaching assignments were people-oriented, not process-
oriented, meaning receiving an assignment relied on having a relationship with the coaching
leadership (CL) instead of a particular process. The coaches wondered how the CL selected
coaches for coaching assignments. The coaches thought having this understanding could help
them position themselves to receive more assignments, increasing their coaching experiences and
bolstering their SE.
Clark and Estes (2008) offered insight on how organizations could increase their
workers’ motivation by developing workers’ belief that the organization supports their workers’
efforts to achieve their goals. The researchers posited that workers who felt unnecessary or

87
missing processes made their jobs challenging became demotivated (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, if those processes were not alleviated, the workers would question the company’s
commitment to the workers’ goal achievement. Based on the research, interview data, and this
construct, the recommendation is for the CL to work with its coaches to review or develop the
process for selecting coaches for coaching assignments. Additionally, frequent and honest
communication about the coaching assignment process will make it transparent and mitigate the
coaches’ frustration and perception that there are barriers to building their capacity.
Recommendation 4: Produce and Implement a Coaching Implementation Support Process
for All Coaches, Starting With a Job Aid That Will Elicit the School Contextual Data
Needed to Tailor Coaching
Four of the five findings for organizational support involved the need for readiness for
coaching; an awareness of and access to the process for establishing coaching roles,
responsibilities, and goals; a coaching implementation support process; and the duration of
coaching assignments which was an insight from the coaches. There were nine coaches who
cited experiences where they coached in schools that were not ready for coaching, resulting in
the coaches’ frustration, low coaching participation, and teachers who displayed resistant
behaviors, all of which inhibited the coaches’ capacity. There were nine coaches who stated that
they wanted to be aware of and have access to establishing their coaching roles, responsibilities,
and goals because coaching without role clarity resulted in frustrated coaches, teachers with
resistant behaviors, low coaching participation, and inhibited the coaches’ capacity to tailor
coaching to schools’ contexts. The coaches’ varying experiences with coaching implementation
support justified the need for a process. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that organizations

88
must “be alert and remove perceived organizational barriers to goal achievement” (p. 93);
otherwise, motivation diminishes even if people have confidence in themselves.
Clark and Estes (2008) spoke to a type of support necessary for most organizational
change processes: the alignment of an organization’s structure and processes with goals.
According to Leader A, the CL collects coaching data and shares it with the coaches, but
according to the interview data, sometimes that data is incomplete or not shared with the
coaches. Based on the literature, interview data, and an informal understanding of the
organization, the recommendation is for the CL to develop and employ a job aid, as the first part
of a developing process, that will address this and the other organizational support needs:
readiness for coaching; an awareness and access to the process for establishing coaching roles,
responsibilities, and goals; and the alignment of the duration of coaching assignments to schools’
contexts.
Job aids are one type of knowledge enhancement created for workers who have the
knowledge to do their job, but they need a tool to guide the use of that knowledge in a novel way
(Clark and Estes (2008). The creation and implementation of a job aid will enhance data
collection and support a data-sharing process. The job aid will provide the CL with a structured
checklist that will direct the collection of data necessary for determining schools’ readiness for
coaching and schools’ contexts, both of which will become the basis for selecting coaches for
coaching assignments, frequency and duration of coaching assignments, and coaching resources.
The CL will seek the coaches’ input on what data to collect. Training on how to use, complete,
and share the data collected with the job aid will promote its implementation. Additionally, the
CL and coaches will learn to use this job aid during discussions with school leadership to
establish the coaches’ roles, responsibilities, and goals.

89
Coaches must be aware of the coaching implementation support process and know how
to access it to benefit from it. According to Leader A and the interview data, the CL has shared
data that they deemed necessary for the coaches, which would not always align with the coaches’
needs. Hattaway and Hensen (2013) suggested considering the audience and how to address their
needs when communicating. Soliciting coaches’ input about what data they require for coaching
implementation will increase the coaches’ awareness and their engagement in the process.
Storing the job aid in the existing cloud drive for coaching documents will allow all coaches to
access the data and encourage the use of the job aid because it contains the data the coaches
requested. An equity scorecard will address and monitor the coaches’ perceptions of their
awareness of and access to data. Fan (2019) described an equity scorecard as a qualitative tool
that measures employees’ perceptions and experiences. This recommendation will bolster the
coaches’ belief in TCC’s commitment to building their capacity.
Recommendation 5: Modify and Implement TCC’s Existing Feedback Form to Facilitate
the Development of an Assessment and Evaluation Process, Ensuring Timely Feedback
That Will Inform Coaching
The last finding for organizational support discovered that feedback was the form of
assessment and evaluation that the coaches often experienced. There were eleven coaches who
said that they either did not receive feedback about their coaching specifically or did not receive
the feedback in enough time to inform their coaching. Additionally, all the coaches felt that the
CL did not read their coaching logs, which was another underutilized form of coaching
assessment because the logs offered insights into coaching experiences and the coaches’
capacity.

90
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizations must have “a clear vision, goals, and
ways to measure progress” (p. 117). Based on information from Leader A about how the CL
provides feedback and the interview data, the recommendation is for the CL to modify then
employ their existing feedback form as part of the assessment and evaluation process, providing
the coaches with the data they need to adjust coaching to schools’ contexts.
The existing feedback form is a rubric or a table with columns and rows. The strategies
are the labels for the rows and numbers are the labels for the columns. The descriptions of the
varying levels of execution for each strategy fill each cell of the rubric. A number between one
and four, denoting that there are levels of progress on a continuum, labels each description for
each strategy. There is a “Notes” section at the bottom of the rubric where the observer can
provide explanations of their assessment. Adding a section that asks for an explanation about the
alignment of strategies to the school’s context will cause the coaches to be intentional when
choosing strategies and help them tailor coaching.
Additionally, including prompts that explicitly direct the observer or assessor on how to
use the feedback form when observing coaching sessions or reviewing the coaching logs will
ensure the form’s employment while addressing the variability of feedback. As a result, the
amount of feedback the coaches receive will increase because coaching and coaching logs will
receive feedback. Finally, this form will establish a company-wide standard for assessing
coaching. CL will need to make this process a priority by committing to and engaging in an
assessment schedule for coaching, holding the CL accountable to providing frequent feedback to
its coaches, and removing an organizational barrier.

91
Summary of Recommendations
Each recommendation acknowledges the KMO assets and addresses the KMO needs that
build the capacity of TCC’s instructional coaches, based on the literature review, qualitative data,
theories, constructs, and informal knowledge about the organization. The first recommendation
addresses the coaches’ knowledge need about coaching models by providing training for coaches
in various coaching models and how to align those models to schools’ contexts, supporting
coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching. The second recommendation addresses the coaches’
motivation need for mastery experiences by producing a form to help them reflect and learn from
their coaching experiences, developing the coaches’ awareness and knowledge of their responses
within various schools’ contexts. The third recommendation addresses the coaches’ motivation
need for more coaching experiences by making the current coaching assignment process
transparent to the coaches, increasing the coaches’ access to more coaching experiences, and
increasing the coaches’ motivation. The fourth recommendation addresses the coaches’
organizational support need for accessing data to tailor coaching to the individual context of each
school by using a job aid. The aid will collect the data coaches need to implement coaching.
Training the CL and the coaches on using and completing the job aid ensures the job aid’s
employment. Storing the job aid on the coaches’ existing cloud drive will provide them access to
it. Additionally, tracking the coaches’ perceptions about their awareness of and access to school
data and coaching support will monitor the progress of this process. The fifth recommendation
addresses the coaches’ organizational support need for feedback by modifying TCC’s existing
assessment and evaluation process and tools to track and monitor coaching goals with fidelity.
TCC will start by modifying its existing feedback form for observing coaching sessions and
reviewing coaching logs, facilitating the form’s employment, and producing a schedule that

92
holds the CL accountable to the coaches regarding providing frequent feedback on their coaching
and coaching logs.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Description of the Plan
This study identifies the influential factors on the capacity of TCC’s instructional coaches
to tailor their coaching to the unique contexts of schools. An informal understanding of TCC, the
literature review, qualitative data, and each KMO factor identified as an asset or a need pointed
to the recommendations that specify how TCC will build its coaches’ capacity. This study’s
recommendations will build the coaches’ capacity by acknowledging their assets and addressing
their articulated and established needs. The subsequent section describes the purpose of the
integrated plan and how its components will support TCC’s implementation and evaluation of
the recommendations comprehensively and inclusively. Adopting this plan will help TCC move
forward with long-term implementation and evaluation strategies.
Goals of the Plan
This plan utilizes S.M.A.R.T. goals. Each letter in the acronym describes one of the
goal’s characteristics: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely (Kellogg
Foundation, 2004). Goals containing these characteristics increase people’s motivation to attain
the goals because they alleviate ambiguity (Bandura, 1994). Additionally, the goals are divided
according to the plan’s implementation timeline. The implementation timeline demonstrates the
company’s commitment to building its coaches’ capacity which will be a motivating factor for its
coaches. The S.M.A.R.T. goals for this plan are as follows:
1. In 1–3 years, the CL will identify and modify 100% of its existing PD training to include
the understanding and aligning of coaching models to schools’ contexts.

93
2. In 1–3 years, all coaches will be aware of and have access to coaching experiences.
3. In 1–3 years, the CL will create and implement a job aid at 100% of planning meetings
about coaching, facilitating the collection of school contextual data the coaches need.
4. In 1–3 years, the CL will revise a coaching feedback form, based on the coaches’ input,
that will guide the collection of coaching data and provide feedback to coaches,
informing their capacity.
5. In 4–6 years, the CL will develop a formal training program that includes the knowledge
and alignment of coaching models to various school contexts for all TCC coaches.
6. In 4–6 years, 100% of the coaches will reflect on their causal attributions to create
mastery experiences.
7. In 4–6 years, the CL will increase by 100% the awareness of, access to, and quality of the
school contextual data and processes coaches receive.
8. In 4–6 years, the CL will formalize the feedback process by establishing a schedule that
will hold 100% of the CL accountable for providing feedback about coaching
9. In 7–10 years, all coaches will align and employ coaching models to schools’ contexts.
10. In 7-10 years, all coaches will perceive themselves as confident based on their mastery
experiences and the knowledge gained from reflecting on their causal attributions.
11. In 7–10 years, all coaches will be aware of and have access to the school contextual data
and coaching processes they need to tailor their coaching.
12. In 7–10 years, TCC will increase the frequency and quality of each coach’s feedback
about their coaching and their coaching logs by 100%.

94
Overview of the Evaluation Plan
As presented by the Kellogg Foundation (2004), the logic model provides direction in
developing an integrated implementation and evaluation plan based on its systematic approach
and use of visuals. As a result, the plan is apparent and allows the reader to connect planned
work to intended results, providing evidence of the impact of the work on the results.
Additionally, the model considers the stakeholders involved in the change process, their current
roles, the activities and resources that affect change, and what the change will look like to
identify goal achievement (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
This study explored the influential factors on the capacity of TCC’s instructional coaches
to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of schools. The findings of this study identified KMO
assets and needs that either built or inhibited the coaches’ capacity. Those identified assets and
needs led to recommendations that will direct TCC’s coaching leadership’s (CL) efforts to build
its coaches’ capacity. Using the Activities Approach logic model, the CL will visualize the
connection between their departmental efforts and the building of its coaches’ capacity by
following each part of the model with fidelity (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The implementation plan consists of two parts: the planned work and the intended results.
The planned work consists of activities and the resources necessary to implement the activities.
This part of the plan produces activities that will build the coaches’ capacity by acknowledging
their identified assets, addressing their identified needs, and the resources needed to implement
the activities. The intended results consist of outputs, or the direct results of plan activities;
outcomes, or the expected individual-level changes resulting from plan activities; and the impact,
or the change that occurs because of the activities, outputs, and outcomes. This part of the plan
tracks the outcomes to focus, assess, and evaluate the CL’s efforts or its activities and resources.

95
Figure 2 is a visual representation of the Activities Approach logic model used to shape this
evaluation plan. Evaluation data will include quantitative data from surveys and qualitative data
from interviews and coaching logs. The following section describes how evaluating the
implementation promotes continuous improvement and goal achievement.

Figure 2
Activities Approach Logic Model

According to the Kellogg Foundation (2004), the logic model includes two types of
evaluation: formative and summative, and three parts of the plan: context, implementation, and
outcomes. Their frequency and purpose differentiate the evaluation types. Furthermore, each part

96
of the evaluation offers a different perspective about the plan. Thus, an evaluation type is
associated with each part of the evaluation.
The context part of this plan evaluates the capacity of TCC’s coaching department overall
and how it will respond to challenges during implementation. The implementation part of this
plan evaluates to what extent TCC’s coaching department will execute the plan with fidelity.
Formative data will assess the context and implementation parts of the plan. Data collection will
occur during the design and implementation of the PD training, forms, aids, and processes. The
monitoring of data will occur monthly for quality and utility, then quarterly during the first year,
then annually. Quantitative data like training surveys and qualitative data like interviews,
coaching logs and equity scorecards will provide evidence about the plan’s context and
implementation.
The outcomes part of this plan evaluates any progress made toward the plan’s goal.
Summative data will assess this part of the plan. Data collection will occur at the end of the plan
to evaluate the benefit of the plan, the extent of the impact on the coaches’ capacity to tailor
coaching, and if the coaches felt the plan was successful. Quantitative data like surveys, sign-in
sheets, usage reports, and qualitative data like interviews and coaching logs will provide
evidence about the plan’s output, outcomes, and impact.
The Kellogg Foundation (2004) suggested focusing evaluation efforts on context and
outcomes. Accordingly, Table 1 offers the questions, indicators, and necessary technical
assistance aligned to each focus area. First, regarding context, the CL must question its
department’s capacity, meaning what knowledge and resources to design, develop and
implement the PD training, forms, aids and processes does the CL have in place and what do
they need. A survey like the diagnostic tool referenced by the Rand organization (2018) will

97
assess the department’s capacity. Second, the CL must also question the plan’s outcomes: (a)
how the plan benefitted the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching, (b) to what extent did the plan
impact the coaches’ capacity, and (c) did the coaches feel the plan was successful.

98
Table 1
Logic Model: Focus Area Questions, Indicators, and Technical Assistance Needed
Focus area Question Indicators Technical assistance
needed
Context—
relationships
and capacity
Do the coaches feel the
PD training, school
contextual data, or
coaching feedback they
received was helpful?

Training feedback, use
of forms and aids, and
satisfaction surveys
Survey and equity
scorecard aligned to
gauge the coaches’
perception of the utility
of the training,
information, or
feedback
Are the coaches
attending the PD
training using the
forms, aids or
processes?

Tracking documents
(sign-in sheets, usage
reports)

Outcomes—
effectiveness,
magnitude, and
satisfaction
How has the coaches’
capacity to align
coaching knowledge to
schools’ contexts
increased?

Assess documents
(coaching logs;
coaching data
collection and
feedback)

How were the coaches
made aware, provided
access to, and
participated in the
design and
implementation of the
PD training, forms,
aids, and process?

Interviews Interview protocol to
standardize data
collection
Are the coaches using
the feedback they
received?
Assess documents
(coaching logs;
coaching data
collection and
feedback)

99
Limitations and Delimitations
Despite attempts to ensure the credibility of this study, an acknowledgment that this study
has limitations justifies its credibility. Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that limitations are an
acknowledgment of the flaws in the research. Those flaws are recognized to prevent future
researchers from encountering the same issues.
A limitation of this study was self-reporting by the research participants. The researcher
tried to make the coaches feel comfortable with being open and honest about their perceptions.
However, the level of comfort with the researcher may have influenced the coaches’ use of
insider language. To combat this type of language, the researcher used probing questions to
clarify and validate the coaches’ experience as suggested by Weiss (1994).
The delimitations of this study are (a) a single stakeholder group, (b) data collection
retrieval, and (c) generalizability. First, based on this study’s limited data collection period and
scope, a sampling technique called maximum variation guided the selection of TCC coaches and
ensured the data included diverse experiences. Ideally, the researcher would have interviewed the
entire coaching staff and the coaching leadership to provide a holistic view of this study’s
problem of practice. Next, the coaches selected for this study had a wide range of experiences,
including coaches with limited experience. Thus, at the time of this study’s data collection, two
of the thirteen coaches had coaching logs that were more than six months old, and one coach’s
log was more than a year old, hampering the researcher’s ability to verify the coaches’ work
experiences against their interview data. Lastly, due to the specificity of this study, the results are
not necessarily generalizable to other organizations that endeavor to build the capacity of their
coaches.

100
Recommendations for Future Research
To remedy this study’s limitation of a single stakeholder group, the researcher will
continue her research by interviewing TCC’s coaching leadership (CL). Having interview data
from the CL will triangulate the data and findings presented here regarding supporting the
capacity building of TCC’s coaches. The researcher will also work with TCC to implement the
recommendations and evaluation plan detailed in this study.
Conclusion
The literature in this study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) factors to organize the research
regarding the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the unique contexts of schools. The
literature, the interview data, and an informal understanding of the organization identified the
KMO factors as assets or needs that built or inhibited the coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching.
The identified assets and needs also led to recommendations that acknowledged the assets and
addressed the coaches’ needs. Furthermore, the recommendations were part of an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan that, if executed with fidelity, will ensure the capacity
building of TCC’s coaches, improving teachers’ instructional practice and ultimately, increasing
student achievement.
Fullan and Knight (2011) stated that coaching is the primary resource for systemic school
improvement. The researchers continued by saying that coaches and coaching were only as
effective as their support. This study’s literature review and data analysis led to the findings that
justified the recommendations that will build TCC’s coaches’ capacity to tailor coaching to the
unique contexts of schools.

101
References
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. John
Wiley & Sons.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, R., Feldman, S., & Minstrell, J. (2014). Understanding relationship: Maximizing the
effects of science coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 54
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bean, R. M., Kern, D., Goatley, V., Ortlieb, E., Shettel, J., Calo, K., ... & Cox, M. A.
(2015). Specialized literacy professionals as literacy leaders: Results of a national survey.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(2), 83–114
Bengo, P. (2016). Secondary mathematics coaching: The components of effective mathematics
coaching and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 88-96
Blamey, K. L., Meyer, C. K., & Walpole, S. (2008). Middle and high school literacy coaches: A
national survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 310–323.
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Exploring mechanisms of effective teacher coaching: A tale
of two cohorts from a randomized experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37(4), 542–566.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed., pp. 117–129).
Allyn and Bacon.

102
Calo, K. M., Sturtevant, E. G., & Kopfman, K. M. (2015). Literacy coaches’ perspectives of
themselves as literacy leaders: Results from a national study of K-12 literacy coaching
and leadership. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(1), 1–18.
Choy, S.P., Chen, X., and Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher Professional Development in 1999–2000:
What Teachers, Principals, and District Staff Report (NCES 2006-305). U.S. Department
of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional
Development. Learning Policy Institute
DeMonte, J. (2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher
training to improve student learning. Center for American Progress.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–
199.
Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional
development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement

103
Feger, S., Woleck, K., & Hickman, P. (2004). How to develop a coaching eye. Journal of Staff
Development, 25(2), 14–18.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Berliner, D. C. (1985). Determining the value of staff development. The
Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 281–314.
Finkelstein, C. (2019). Doing our part: Trust and relational dynamics in literacy coaching.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(4), 317–337.
Finkelstein, C. (2016). Thank you so much for the truth!. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 19–24.
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational leadership, 69(2),
50–53.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M. D., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching:
Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963.
Gibson, S. A. (2005). Developing knowledge of coaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(2),
63–74.
Gibson, S. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading
coach. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 295–318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558453
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching,
8(3), 381–391.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.
Hall, P., & Simeral, A. (2008). Building teachers' capacity for success: A collaborative

104
approach for coaches and school leaders. ASCD.
International Reading Association, & National Council of Teachers of English. (2006).
Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. International Reading Assoc.
Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive
relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164–190.
Jacob, A., & McGovern, K. (2015). The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest
for Teacher Development. TNTP.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of “coaching.”
Journal of Education, 163(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748116300208
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4–
10.
Knight, J. (2016). Teach to win. The Education Digest, 81(5), 27.
Knight, J., & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: A focus on practice.
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100–112.
Kraft, M.A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and
achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research
[Internet], 88(4): 547–588.
L’ Allier, S., Elish‐Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy
coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement.
The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544–554.
Larsen, E., & Allen, J. (2014). The novice literacy coach: Exploring motivation and persistence

105
in the face of challenge. Proceedings of the Annual International Australian Association
for Research in Education Conference 2014 (AARE 2014). Australian Association for
Research in Education.
Lowenhaupt, R., McKinney, S., & Reeves, T. (2014). Coaching in context: The role of
relationships in the work of three literacy coaches. Professional Development in
Education, 40(5), 740–757.
Lynch, J., & Ferguson, K. (2010). Reflections of elementary school literacy coaches on
practice: Roles and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 199–227.
Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Lockwood, J. R., Gershwin, D., & Martorell, F. (2008).
Supporting literacy across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school reading
coaches (Vol. 762). Rand Corporation.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Merriam, S. B. (2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty‐first century. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 93–98.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity,
promises and practicalities. The Aspen Institute.
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”.
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7.
Parsons, A. W. (2018). Becoming a literacy specialist: Developing identities. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 57(4), 387–407.

106
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative Research and
Evaluation Methods (3rd ed., pp. 339–380). Sage Publications.
Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A. J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. A. (2003).
The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's choice schools. CPRE
Research reports. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchresports/35
Rainville, K. N., & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a
literacy coach. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 440–448.
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. Research Methods for Business Students, 5
th
ed. Pearson Education India.
Schulze, K. A. (2016). Instructional Coaches and the Development of Relational Trust.
(Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University).
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46–51.
Shanklin, N. L. (2007). What supports do literacy coaches need from administrators in order
to succeed? Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43–48.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53,
12–16.
Snow, C., Ippolito, J., & Schwartz, R. (2005). What we know and what we need to know about
literacy coaches in middle and high schools: a research synthesis and proposed research
agenda (Part 3). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(4), S35–S35.
Steckel B. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it
take to make an impact? The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 14–23. https://doi:10.1598/RT.63
Tooley, M., & Connally, K. (2016). No panacea: Diagnosing what ails teacher professional

107
development before reaching for remedies. New America.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing. Learning from Strangers: The
Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, (pp. 51–59).
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033.

108
Appendix A: Document Verification Rubric
Question Close-ended responses:
Yes or No
Open-ended responses
Who is the author of this log?

For whom is this log
intended?

What were the coach’s
sources of information for
this log?

Is the log complete, as
originally constructed?

Has it been tampered with or
edited?

What was the author’s bias?

To what extent was the writer
likely to want to tell the
truth?

Do other documents exist that
might shed additional light on
the same coaching session? If
so, can they be accessed?

Who holds those documents?

Note. Adapted from “Using Documents and Artifacts in Qualitative Research” by S.B. Merriam
and E.J. Tisdell, 2016, Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, (4th ed.),
p. 176 – 177.

109
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Instructions: Draft a minimum of 12 interview questions. For each question, in
parenthesis, include the research question(s) that are addressed by the interview question and key
concepts from your emerging conceptual framework. Example: How confident are you in your
ability to use the software to generate custom data reports?
Interview Protocol—Instructional Coaches
Thank you for allowing me to interview you today regarding exploring the influences on
the capacity building of TCC’s instructional coaches. My name is Alia Ashley, and I am a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California. This interview will be part of my
dissertation. Having your perspective as part of this research will add the richness needed to
deeply understand this focus.
Everything that you say during this interview will be kept confidential and responses to
this data collection will be used only for research purposes. Your name will not appear on any
transcript, observation notes, report, or other publication. Responses will be used for research
and educational purposes only. The reports prepared for this study will summarize the
information gathered from the people I interview and observe, and responses will never be
associated with a specific individual.
The interview will take approximately one-hour. I will record the interview for note-
taking accuracy. The recording will be heard only by me, and all identifying information will be
removed from the audio before it is stored.
Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you do not have to answer any
questions you do not want to. Additionally, your participation (or failure to participate) will not

110
influence your standing within the company. With your permission, I will start the recording
now.
Hit Record Button!
(Note to interviewer: You may skip any questions that do not apply to the participants’
experiences based on the phase of program implementation.)
Before we begin, do you have any questions for me?
1. First, tell me about your preparation to be a coach.
a. Tell me about your background and the qualifications that prepared you to be a
coach.
i. What qualifications do you think are most important to the work of
coaching? Probe: Which ones do you possess? Which ones don’t you
have?
ii. What learning strategies are most effective for working with adults as a
coach?
iii. If you had to pick two or three coaching strategies that have the best
promise for impacting teacher practice, what would they be? Probe:
Explain what it is about each strategy that makes it a best practice.
b. How confident are you in your coaching ability?
c. How often do you reflect on your role as a coach? Probe: What do you think
about it? Probe: What does it mean to be a coach? Probe: What is your primary
goal or purpose as someone who coaches others?
2. Let’s talk about your coaching experiences.

111
a. Describe an experience when you felt like when you were particularly successful
in a coaching assignment. Probe: What made it particularly successful? Probe:
What do you think contributed to that experience?
b. Describe an experience when you felt less successful than you wanted to be.
Probe: What do you think contributed to that experience? Probe: What would
have helped you?
c. What drew you to coaching? Why do you continue to coach?
3. Now, let’s move on to coaching relationships specifically.
a. Describe the ideal coaching relationship.
b. How do you approach building relationships when you start a coaching
assignment? Provide examples if possible. Probe: What about those approaches
helped you build those relationships? Probe: What about those approaches made
building those relationships difficult? Probe: Specifically, how do you present
yourself to the person being coached?
c. What skills or strategies do you use to manage coaching relationships if any?
Provide examples if possible. Probe: What about those skills or strategies that
helped you manage those relationships? Probe: What about those skills or
strategies made managing those relationships difficult?
d. Describe a time when you coached a particularly resistant teacher.
4. We will shift to describing the culture or environment that supports you as a coach.
a. How long have you worked with TCC?
b. How were you orientated into TCC coaching? Probe: What are the goals for TCC
coaching?

112
c. Describe what it is like to be a coach with TCC. Probe: What supports you as a
coach? What does not support you?
d. Explain the process TCC uses to prepare you for a coaching assignment. You can
also give an example of a recent assignment.
e. Explain the resources TCC uses to prepare you for a coaching assignment. You
can give an example of a recent assignment.
5. Finally, I have a few questions about the ways TCC builds your capacity as a coach if at
all.
a. How has feedback about your performance been shared with you, if at all? Probe:
How did that feedback make you feel? Probe: How did you respond to that
feedback, if at all? Provide an example if possible.
b. How do you share your feedback about your coaching assignments, if at all?
Probe: How has it been received?
c. Imagine an impactful professional development opportunity for coaches. Describe
it in as much detail as possible. Probe: How would it be communicated? What
would it look like? Feel like? Sound like? What made it a positive experience?
What made it useful?
d. What type of training and experiences exist to help TCC coaches assess or tailor
their coaching to the context of each school? Probe: What specific training and
experiences have been most effective for building your capacity? Probe: What
specific training and experiences need improvement?
e. What kinds of support do you think coaches at TCC need to expand their learning
about coaching?

113
f. What suggestions do you have for improving the coaching program overall?
We have reached the end of the prepared questions. Is there anything else you would like to tell
me about your experience so far with coaching or with TCC?
Thank you very much for participating in this interview.
Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or would like to add anything to what
you said today.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Instructional coaching is a necessary practice for building the capacity of teachers and their instructional practice, resulting in increased student achievement. The purpose of this qualitative study was to learn more about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support factors that influence the capacity of instructional coaches to tailor coaching from their perspectives. The researcher purposefully selected 17 of the approximately 60 coaches of a particular company’s national coaching staff; 13 coaches participated in this study. The literature provided the sampling criteria used in this study: (a) coaching experience, (b) teaching experience, and (c) formal coaching training. The collection of data included a one-hour, semi-structured video conferenced interview and a review of personal documents called coaching logs. The logs were primary sources of data that chronicled the coaches’ work with teachers and served as evidence of the quality of the coaches’ work. The researcher analyzed and coded the collected qualitative data to identify recommended solutions that will build the capacity of the company’s coaching staff. The following research questions guided this study: ❧ 1. What are the knowledge assets and needs of coaches related to their capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school? ❧ 2. What are the motivation assets and needs of coaches related to their capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school? ❧ 3. What are the organizational assets and needs related to supporting the coaches and their capacity to tailor coaching services to the unique context of each school?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Building capacity to increase community member involvement at a clinical and translational science award (CTSA)

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Instructional designers in the new learning paradigm: COVID-19’s impact on roles and responsibilities of instructional designers

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

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

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Leadership pipeline and succession: promising practices for building leadership capacity in a K-12 school district

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Leadership capacity and pipeline in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Ashley, Alia (author)

Core Title Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 08/05/2021

Defense Date 08/05/2021

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

Tag capacity building,instructional coaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Kellar, Frances (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email aliaashl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15710715

Unique identifier UC15710715

Legacy Identifier etd-AshleyAlia-10008

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ashley, Alia

Type texts

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

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