Microsoft Word - 1004_final.doc 1 Volume 16, Number 1 February 21, 2013 ISSN 1099-839X Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer Chin-Wen Chien National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Coaches can provide teachers with quality professional development experiences by mentoring, providing workshops, modeling, or encouraging professional growth (York- Barr & Duke, 2004). This study focuses on the instructional coach’s role in the professional development of teachers of English language learners (ELLs). The study has the following findings. First, the coach, acted as a professional developer for teachers of ELLs in the workshop, because she designed and delivered the workshop, mentored teachers, modeled and scaffolded lessons in the lesson-planning process, modeled teaching, and led them to do self-reflection. Second, from the participating teachers’ perspective, the instructional coach’s knowledge and understanding of academic language made the workshop well-organized. The teachers of ELLs surveyed and interviewed found the instructional coach they worked with to be helpful, organized, and well-informed. Third, less follow-up coaching support and district policy on coaching made the workshop less effective. Two suggestions for coaches to be effective professional developers for language teachers are provided. Keywords: effective coaching, instructional coach, professional development, role, teachers of English language learners Educators and researchers generally believe and promote the concept that one of the best ways to improve the teaching and learning process is by providing teachers with quality professional development experiences (Eun, 2006). Continuous professional development must be given top priority for teachers (Ardila-Rey, 2008). Professional development and workshops for language teachers are designed and delivered by external expert presenters such as instructional coaches (Boroko, 2004). Coaches can provide teachers with quality professional development experiences by mentoring, providing workshops, modeling, or encouraging professional growth (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Unlike traditional professional development, which takes place outside the classroom setting and requires teachers to transfer new knowledge to the classroom, coaching takes place in the instructional setting (Taylor, 2008). Coaching provides learning opportunities that can be adapted to the particular classroom setting; therefore, coaching can aid the transfer and application of new learning in teachers’ daily classroom instruction (Joyce & Showers, 1980). Coaches were once found only on the athletic field. However, coaching for teachers’ effective instruction has spread rapidly through elementary, middle, and high schools in the United States. Coaching develops trust, instills collective responsibility, imparts an innovative orientation, and provides an example of professionalism around instructional practice (Knight, 2006, 2009). Carrera’s (2010) study concludes that different types of coaching practice, coaches’ qualities, and follow- up coaching support influence the effectiveness of Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 2 coaching on language teachers’ professional development and learning. This study focuses on the instructional coach’s role in the professional development of teachers of English language learners (ELLs), with particular reference to the coach’s role as a learning facilitator and instructional specialist. In addition to considering the coach’s roles, qualities, and the provision of follow-up support (Carrera, 2010), this study aims to discuss the attributes and conditions that contribute to effective coaching when an instructional coach provides teacher’s professional development. Suggestions are provided on effective coaching. Literature Review The current study and literature on the roles of coaches, their attributes and expertise, and values, as well as conditions for effective coaching are discussed as follows: Roles of Coaches Reiss (2007) defines a coach as a person, a process, a role, and a profession. Toll (2004) defines a coach as: …one who helps teachers to recognize what they know and can do, assists teachers as they strengthen their ability to make more effective use of what they know and do, and supports teachers as they learn more and do more. (p. 5) Therefore, a coach takes on different roles as in Figure 1, including that of data coach, resource provider, counselor, mentor, curriculum specialist, instructional specialist, classroom supporter, learning facilitator, school leader, and catalyst for change (Knight, 2009; Marsh, McCombs, Lockwood, Martorell, Gerwhwin, & Naftel, 2008). While data coaches assist individual teachers or teams of teachers in examining student achievement data and in using these data to design forms of instruction to meet students’ learning needs, mentors serve the needs of new teachers or new-to-the-school teachers. Coaches also act as curriculum specialists who focus on teaching content and classroom support and work side by side with teachers within the classroom. Coaches can themselves be school leaders or catalysts for change, because they contribute to initiatives for reform. By acting as learning facilitators, coaches can design and facilitate adults’ learning in schools (Knight, 2009). Kise’s (2006) definition limits coaching to a partnership between the coach and the person being coached. Poglinco and Bach define coaching as “a form of inquiry-based learning characterized by collaboration between individual, or groups of, teachers and more accomplished peers” as in Figure 1 (2004, p. 398). Bean (2004) identifies three levels of activities associated with the coaches. Level one includes informal activities such as curriculum development or leading a study group. Level two activities are focused on area needs such as co-planning lessons, co-teaching lessons, or analyzing student work. Level three refers to visiting classrooms and providing teachers with feedback. Figure 1. Instructional coach’s roles. Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer 3 Therefore, an instructor coach supports teacher’s professional development, and this role combines that of both a learning facilitator and instructional specialist. A coach organizes, designs, and facilitates teachers’ learning. A coach also helps teachers choose appropriate instructional methodologies to meet students’ needs and works with the teacher in modeling effective teaching practices, co-teaching, and observing and giving feedback. Attributes and Expertise of Coaches Effective reading coaches must meet the following criteria. Coaches must be expert classroom teachers; possess in-depth knowledge of reading processes, acquisition, assessment, and instruction; be excellent presenters and have a lot of experience working with other teachers to improve their classroom practice; and, have expertise in observing, modeling, and providing feedback to teachers (International Reading Association, 2004; Feger, 2004; Froelich & Puig, 2007; Killion & Harrison, 2005). Reiss (2007) identifies coaching mindset attributes: active listener, nonjudgmental, possibility thinker, compassionate, inspirational, personable, intuitive, sincere, trustworthy, risk taker, action oriented, focused on results, knows core coaching competences, and curious. Lisa, a reading coach in Gibson’s (2006) study, provided reading lesson observations and feedback to Jim, a kindergarten teacher. She demonstrated her expertise throughout the coaching session by using pedagogical reasoning to support Jim on improving his instruction, asking him to analyze his students’ responses to instruction, helping him clarify and expand his understanding of his proposed course of action, and providing him with specific information and advice on effective reading instruction. Hence, effective coaches must have adequate knowledge of the curriculum and instruction. Most importantly, they must learn “how to coach,” implying that they must learn how to relate to adult learners, present professional development sessions, use student performance data, develop rapport with colleagues, and tailor their work to teachers’ needs (Johnson, 2009; Taylor, 2008). Value of Coaching The value of instructional coaches has been studied extensively over the last several years. West (2012) claims that high-quality coaching can help develop coach-teacher partnerships and affect teaching practices in the classroom for ELLs. When teachers participate in traditional in-service programs, they apply less than twenty percent of their learning in the classroom (Spokane Public Schools, 2004). Teachers are more likely to "buy in to" and change their own instructional practices when coaches come into their classrooms and model instructional techniques (Poglinco & Bach, 2004; Knight, 2009). Compared to those who have not received coaching, teachers who experienced coaching are more willing to try new strategies (Taylor, 2008). An instructional coaching model offers support, feedback, and intensive, individualized professional learning which promises to be a better way to improve instruction in schools (Knight, 2006, 2009; Reeves, 2007). Ultimately, professional development results in the transfer of new instructional practices, and the coaching aspect facilitates the transfer of the training (Joyce & Showers, 1988). In Reed’s (2005) case study, the cognitive coaching process provided the opportunity for seven teachers to restructure their educational practice as they engaged in professional dialogue and reflection with instructional coaches, principals, and peers. Johnson’s (2009) study concludes that coaching may be a very valuable tool for increasing the instructional capacity of schools and differentiating the career of teaching. In her study, 85 second-stage teachers who had 4–10 years of teaching experience were interviewed; they commented that they welcomed the help of instructional coaches, because the instructional coaches, as skilled teachers, provided practice and in- class assistance, and helped them improve their current performance. Carrera’s (2010) study examines the use of instructional coaching in one urban school as a form of professional development for teachers of ELLs in New York. The teachers of ELLs identified three challenges in teaching their students, including student stressors related to adapting to a new country, the wide range of literacy levels in the classroom, and teaching academic language. Based on the challenges teachers of ELLs faced in Carrera’s (2010) study, the instructional coaches offered a professional development program in vocabulary, reading, writing, lesson planning, and cooperative learning strategies. Two types of coaching were implemented: (1) peer observations and group debriefing sessions in Teacher Learning Communities (TLCs); and (2) individualized coaching sessions, which included: a one-on-one pre-meeting, an observation, and a one-on- one debriefing session. The study concluded that the professional and personal qualities of the coaches and support from the principal became key factors in how coaching was established at the school. Carrera’s (2010) findings were consistent with the literature on coaching (Knight, 2006, 2009). These qualities of the coaches affected the ways in which coaches and teachers of ELLs established trust, how coaches set the tone for their work at the school, how coaches provided teachers feedback and opportunities for reflective dialogue, and how they created a supportive and nurturing environment. The coaches in Carrera’s (2010) study did not provide follow- up coaching sessions to see if the professional development was effective or not. This study aims to discover the influence and value of an instructional coach’s design and delivery of Workshop II, two follow- Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 4 up workshops, and follow-up coaching support on ELL teachers’ classroom practice and their perspectives on coaching. Conditions for Effective Coaching According to Taylor (2008), coaching is most likely to be effective when coaches are supported by time, logistics, training, and expertise. Coaching is influenced by other reform initiatives, educational policy imperatives, and the organizational context (Borman & Feger, 2006; Taylor, 2008). Coaching is likely to be affected by the “policy environment.” Taylor (2008) explained that: “Such environment is comprised of a complex historical accumulation of previous reform initiatives, professional development policies, and teacher recruitment, retention, and collective bargaining realities” (Taylor, 2008, p. 27). More than 28 percent of coaches in Marsh et al.’s (2008) study reported that frequent changes in district policy and priorities were a moderate hindrance to their work, while 20 percent of coaches reported that the district education authority asked them to communicate and enforce district messages and initiatives in ways that discouraged them from doing more important work to improve reading in schools. In addition to the policy environment, another condition for effective coaching is the need for coaches to spend time getting into classrooms to work with teachers and provide them with follow-up support (Borman & Feger, 2006; Marsh et al., 2008). Cheliotes and Reilly (2010) recommend that 85% of the coaches’ time should be in the coaching zone, about 10% of their time in the mentoring zone, and only 5% of their time in the supervising zone. However, compared to Florida State’s expectation that half of coaches’ time should be spent on in-class coaching activities, more than 60 percent of coaches interviewed in Marsh et al.’s (2008) study spent 16 hours or less on individual instructional work. About 47 percent of coaches reported that their other duties or work (i.e., testing and data reporting) made it difficult for them to spend time in classrooms working with teachers, and they would have preferred to devote the time to in- class, one-on-one work with teachers. From the teachers’ perspective, more than 60 percent of social studies teachers in Marsh et al.’s (2008) study reported never having received the various types of one-on-one coaching support, such as classroom observation, feedback on instruction, assistance with lesson planning, help with modeling lessons modeling, or co-teaching. Another condition for effective coaching is for teachers to be willing and motivated to receive instructional coaches’ help in changing and improving their instructional practice (Reed, 2005; Reeves, 2007; Taylor, 2008). The motivation of teachers to implement the practice and receive help is a result of their internal conviction that they can make changes that improve students’ performance. Approximately one-third of coaches interviewed in Marsh et al.’s (2008) study reported that teachers’ reluctance to work with them was a hindrance to their work. Teachers in Reed’s (2005) study reported that their openness and willingness contributed to, or their resistance inhibited, the implementation of the Cognitive Coaching process. There are books on how to coach teachers, the roles of coaching, coaching cycles, etc. (Bloom, Castagna, Mori, & Warren, 2006; Carr, Herman, & Harris, 2005; Davis, 2008; Flaherty, 2006; Killion & Harrison, 2006; Kise, 2006; Knight, 2006, 2009; Reiss, 2007). There are also studies (Coskie, Robinson, Buly, & Egawa, 2005; Farrell, 2001; Froelich & Puig, 2007; Gibson, 2006; Goker, 2006; Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007) on peer coaching among ESL teachers, literacy coaching, and math coaches, but only Carrera’s (2010) study focuses on what factors affected the instructional coaching on language teachers’ professional development. In addition, to considering coaches’ roles, their qualities, follow-up support, the perspectives and attitudes of those who are coached, the organization, and context (Borman & Feger, 2006; Carrera, 2010; Marsh et al., 2008; Reed, 2005; Reeves, 2007; Taylor, 2008), this study aims to discuss the attributes and conditions that contribute to effective coaching by an instructional coach providing support to a teacher’s professional development. This study focuses on an instructional coach’s role as the teachers’ professional developer in terms of roles, expertise and attributes, as well as factors that affects the effective coaching. The following three issues will be discussed. First, what tasks does the instructional coach need to undertake to provide professional development for teachers? Second, what attributes and expertise does the instructional coach demonstrate in Workshop II? Third, what are the conditions for the instructional coach to provide effective professional development for teachers? Method This is a qualitative case study. Qualitative research begins with assumptions, the possible theoretic lens, and the research problems. Then researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry by collecting the data in the natural setting as well as analyzing and interpreting the data on themes or patterns (Creswell, 2009; Yin, 2009). Merriam (1998) claims that case study research is effective in providing intensive descriptions and analyses of a unit or bounded system such as an individual, program, or group, because a case study focuses on developing an in-depth analysis of a single case and it requires researchers to set boundaries and describe that they have engaged in a purposeful sampling strategy in meeting those boundaries (Creswell, 2009; Hamel, 1993). So the case is the coach and the unit of analysis is the interactions that the coach has with the teachers. Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer 5 Settings and Participants During the fall semester of 2009, instructional coaches in a school district in a northwest American city began to provide a workshop (herein referred to as Workshop II) to teachers of ELLs. Workshop II was a twelve-hour course which consisted of one full day with six hours and two evening sessions with three hours each and aimed to support teachers in developing a better understanding of what academic language is and how to teach it. Participants in this study included (1) 30 teachers who participated in Workshop II and answered the surveys, (2) one instructional coach, and (3) two additional teachers who participated in the follow-up interview. The instructional coach works with five other instructional coaches and two consulting teachers under one program director in the district office and she was chosen because she designed and delivered Workshop II. The instructional coach provided the researcher with a list of teachers who attended Workshop II and were in the coaching school areas that she was responsible for in the district. The researcher emailed the teachers on the list provided by the instructional coach and two teachers of ELLs responded that they were willing to participate in this study. The major person in this study was the instructional coach, Barbara. She is working on her doctoral dissertation in ELL teaching coaching practice. Barbara has six years of ELL teaching experience, and is currently working with five other instructional coaches and two consulting teachers under one program director. In the fall of 2010 she worked with teachers from six elementary schools. Barbara designs and delivers professional development, co-plans lessons with teachers, provides model lessons, observes teachers’ instruction, designs and releases a monthly newsletter, provides related teaching materials and resources, and helps teachers understand the requirements of the language proficiency levels of English language development. Two teachers of ELLs participated in the follow- up study including Nichole and Rebecca. They taught students from kindergarten through fifth grade in the self- contained classes. Nichole is a teacher of ELLs with a master’s degree in education, a teacher’s certificate, and an ELL endorsement. She began to teach in 2001, although she has taken a few breaks in the past ten years. Rebecca received her bachelor of arts in English. She has a teacher’s certificate and an ELL endorsement. She was a kindergarten teacher for six years in two schools and she wanted to be an ELL specialist. She became a teacher of ELLs two years ago. Data Collection Data were collected from September 2009 to December 2010, through surveys, observational field notes; and interviews. The first type of data was gathered from surveys designed specifically for providing constructive comments for instructional coaches. Teachers were asked the following four questions at the end of the last session of Workshop II: 1) What new ideas or questions do you have about academic language?; 2) What did you find helpful/effective about today’s professional development session?; 3) What would you like to learn more about?; and 4) What was not effective about today’s professional development session? Observation is one of the most natural ways of collecting data (Bartels, 2005; Richards & Morse, 2007). The researcher attended, observed, and took field notes while the instructional coach designed and delivered Workshop II. At the researcher’s time convenience, six observations, including of one full-day, three evening sessions, and two follow-up, were conducted from September 2009 to December 2010. The third type of data was drawn from interviews. Two teachers and the instructional coach were interviewed twice in this study and each interview lasted for forty minutes. The first interview was in October 2010 and the other one was in December 2010, respectively before and at the end Workshop II. Two teachers of ELLs and one instructional coach were interviewed: the interview with the instructional coach focused on her demographic information and the objectives of designing, delivering, and providing follow-up support for Workshop II, while the interviews with the teachers of ELLs focused on their reactions and the support teachers of ELLs received following Workshop II. Semi-structured interviews were used in this study in order to explore issues, probe for and follow up on the responses, and to allow for interaction (Flick, 1998; Kvale, 1996). An interview protocol was designed and consists of interview questions generated based on the research questions. The instructional coach was asked questions such as, “How did you design and deliver of Workshop II?” or “How have you provided teachers of ELLs with continued support and follow-up activities after Workshop II?” Two teachers of ELLs were asked questions such as, “What kinds of continued support and follow-up activities did you receive from Workshop II?” or “What’s your experience like being with instructional coaches?” Data Analysis Qualitative researchers build their patterns, categories, and themes by organizing the data into more abstract units of information (Creswell, 2009). Guided by the research questions, data are categorized into units of information, such as coach’s role, expertise, or attributes. Qualitative researchers gather multiple forms of data, such as data from interviews, observations, and surveys, rather than rely on a single data source (Creswell, 2009; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). In this study, the triangulation of multiple sources of data (interviews, observations, and surveys) adds texture, depth, and multiple insights to an analysis and it enhances the validity or credibility of the results. Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 6 Table 1 Fieldnotes on Coaches’ Roles Number Fieldnotes #1 Today Barbara and other instructional coaches went through the PowerPoint slides of Workshop II and wrote down the instructional procedures. #2 Barbara introduced the objectives and academic language. She reviewed clear teaching points. She wanted teachers to talk to partners and discuss how they would explain generalization to fourth graders. #3 Barbara gave one mini-lesson demonstrations on non-fiction writing to all teachers. #4 Barbara wanted teachers to design their own lessons. She walked around to help teachers. Table 2 Teachers’ Responses on Surveys on Coaches’ Attributes Number Teachers’ responses on surveys #1 Nice coach, very helpful. #2 It was so well-organized. The coach was very knowledgeable and articulate. #3 Clearly reviewing the materials, demonstrate, model Discussion This study focuses on an instructional coach’s role as language teachers’ professional developer in terms of her roles, expertise and attributes, and conditions. An Instructional Coach’s Roles In Workshop II, the instructional coach, Barbara, took the major role of professional developer for teachers of ELLs. She designed and delivered Workshop II, mentored teachers, modeled and scaffolded lessons in the lesson-planning process, modeled teaching, and led them in a self-reflection exercise as Table 1. Therefore, she devoted herself more to Bean’s (2004) as level two activities “co-planning lessons, co-teaching lessons, or analyzing student work.” An Instructional Coach’s Expertise and Attributes In this study, most teachers of ELLs in the surveys responded that they considered Barbara to be knowledgeable, helpful, and well-organized when she delivered Workshop II as in Table 2. When asked about her experience with Barbara, Nichole said: “I have a lot of respect for her. I found her to be the most organized, articulate, and quick.” Rebecca thought that Barbara was knowledgeable about academic language and the topics covered in Workshop II. Barbara demonstrated the attributes of instructional coaching identified in current research (International Reading Association, 2004; Feger, 2004; Froelich & Puig, 2007; Killion & Harrison, 2005) such as professionalism, expertise, and content knowledge, in academic knowledge in Workshop II. Conditions for Effective Coaching Teachers apply less than 20 percent of their learning from in-service training in their classrooms (Spokane Public Schools, 2004); however, teachers are more likely to change their own instructional practices when coaches come into their classrooms and model instructional techniques (Poglinco & Bach, 2004; Knight, 2009). In respond to the question “What new ideas or questions do you have about academic language?” on the evaluation form, two teachers wrote as in Table 3. Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer 7 Table 3 Teachers’ Responses on Evaluation Forms on Their Learning Number Teachers’ responses on surveys #1 Implementation of activities on academic language in my classroom and follow-up support from the coach #2 I’d like someone to observe me and provide direct feedback on my application of my learning. The most efficient and effective way to improve teachers’ knowledge base, analytical skills, and expertise is through one-on-one coaching. The key to teachers’ growth, development, and improved practice is the ability to reflect on one’s learning, to change practice based on the reflection (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Unfortunately, Barbara was not able to provide much follow-up and ongoing support for the teachers of ELLs who attended Workshop II. Nichole wanted Barbara to come to her class to observe a lesson, and do a teaching demonstration. Due to district policy on coaching, Barbara could not go to Nichole’s class and provide her with follow-up support because Nichole was not in Barbara’s coaching school during the 2009 academic year. The coach who was supposed to be responsible for providing Nichole’s coaching support neglected her request. The district policy on coaching and teachers’ willingness to receive Barbara’s coaching service limited the implementation of Workshop II in teachers’ classroom practices to some extent. Under district policy on coaching, Barbara explained that each instructional coach is assigned to serve and provide coaching supports to teachers of ELLs in different elementary schools that are grouped by areas as northwest, southwest, central, etc. This study suggested that the district should take district policy on coaching into consideration and future research should study the impact of coaching context policy on teachers’ classroom practice. Nichole was not in Barbara’s coaching schools in 2009, but she was in Barbara’s coaching schools in 2010. Nichole received more coaching support from Barbara in 2010, so she stated that she implemented more strategies from Workshop II. In the interview, Nichole said, Workshop II motivated me to integrate more academic language and language focus into my teaching. For example, before reading the story The Rough-Face Girl, I introduced two types of texts by pointing to the word cards “informative” and “narrative” on the wall and explaining these two types of genres. I reviewed these two types each time when I read books and asked students to identify which genre the book was. Therefore, Lycons and Pinnell (2001) discover that the greatest shifts in understanding and practice occur when the teacher is engaged in the reflective process with a more knowledgeable and experienced coach. During the 2009 academic year, Barbara wrote an email to the teachers of ELLs in her coaching schools to provide one-on-one coaching to Workshop II on academic language instruction, but only a few teachers responded to her. She provided these teachers with a three-day coaching cycle, referring to co-lesson planning on the first day, observing teachers’ teaching on the second day, and modeling a lesson on the third day. Rebecca had not had one-on-one coaching with Barbara before, and she hoped that she would be able to receive more coaching support in the future. In order for coaches to be effective professional developers for language teachers, suggestions are provided based on the above findings and literature as in Figure 2. First, effective professional development must be comprehensively designed and systematically delivered by knowledgeable teacher trainers such as instructional coaches. An instructional coach must have expertise in content areas and designing and delivering professional development. Second, instructional coaches should provide teachers with ongoing support. Third, in this study, the district policy on coaching limited the implementation of the workshop outcomes in teachers’ classroom practice to some extent, so the area policy should be taken into consideration as part of achieving effective coaching. Finally, teachers must be willing to receive coaching support, so coaching can make changes on their teaching beliefs and classroom practice. Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 8 Figure 2. Instructional coach as effective teachers’ professional developer. Conclusions This study focuses on an instructional coach’s role as language teachers’ professional developer. The study has the following findings. First, Barbara, the coach, acted as a professional developer for teachers of ELLs in Workshop II, because she designed and delivered Workshop II, mentored teachers, modeled and scaffolded lessons in the lesson-planning process, modeled teaching, and led them to do self-reflection. Second, from the participating teachers’ perspective, the instructional coach’s knowledge and understanding of academic language made Workshop II well-organized. The teachers of ELLs surveyed and interviewed found the instructional coach they worked with to be helpful, organized, and well-informed. Third, less follow-up coaching support and district policy on coaching made Workshop II less effective. The findings of this study are consistent with Carrera’s (2010) study on instructional coaching as a form of professional development for teachers of ELLs. Qualities of instructional coaches and follow-up support influence the effectiveness of teachers’ professional development and their classroom practice. Barbara created a teacher observation form to assess how the teachers could integrate Workshop II into their classroom practice. She observed teachers’ instruction in the 2009 academic year. Compared to her prior observations before Workshop II, her observations after the workshop were as follows: Teachers were more aware of the language focus. Teachers of ELLs integrated sentence stems and introduced more vocabulary into their classroom practice. Teachers taught sentence stems mostly for oral language, but not in writing. When teachers did guided reading, they asked students to respond orally by saying phrases such as ‘I predicted that___’ or ‘I found out that__’ as was provided in Workshop II. This study concludes that teachers’ willingness to receive coaching practice and district policy on coaching are conditions for effective coaching. This case study involved only one instructional coach and 30 teachers of ELLs in a northwest American city. This small number of participants limits its findings by preventing them from being generalisable in regard to larger English teacher populations. Based on the observational fieldnotes of Workshop II, the evaluation forms, and interviews data; however, 25 out of 30 teachers of ELLs found that the coach’s role as teachers’ professional developer can provide practical implications for coaching practice among language teachers. Another limitation is that there is no direct measure of how teachers of ELLs actually changed due to the coaches and Workshop II. The study can only reveal what teachers of ELLs felt about Workshop II, their attitudes toward the instructional coach, and the instructional coach’s observations of the teachers’ classroom practice. Instructional coaches play different roles in educational fields from data coach to teacher leaders and this study mainly focuses on the coach’s role as a professional developer. One aspect of instructional coaching that requires further study is how far Bean's (2004) three levels of training activities influence coaches. Understanding how instructional coaches divide their time could add to an understanding of the role of coaches in teachers’ classroom practice. Other studies might also explore how instructional coaches work their relationships with teachers in planning and setting individual professional development goals, designing Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer 9 actions, monitoring progress, and celebrating success. References Ardila-Rey, A. (2008). Language, culture, policy, and standards in teacher preparation: lessons from research and model practices addressing the needs of CLD children and their teachers. In M. E. Brisk, Language, culture, and community in Teacher Education (pp. 331-352). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Bartels, N. (2005). Researching applied linguistics in language teacher education. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media, Inc. Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches. The California Reader, 37(3), 58-63. Bloom, G. S., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2006). Blended coaching: Skills and strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Borman, J., & Feger, S. (2006). Instructional coaching: Key themes from the literature. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance Brown University. Boroko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. Carr, J., Herman, N., & Harris, D. (2005). Creating dynamic schools through mentoring, coaching, and collaboration. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Carrera, H. C. (2010). Enhancing teacher practice through coaching: A case study in an English language learner environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Pennsylvania. Cheliotes, L. G., & Reilly, M. F. (2010). Coaching conversation: Transforming your school one conversation at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Coskie, T., Rrobinson, L. A., Buly, M. R., & Egawa, K. (2005). What makes an effective literacy coach? Voices from the Middle, 12(4), 60-61. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davis, B. (2008). How to coach teachers who don’t think like you. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Eun, B. (2006). The impact of English as second language professional development program: A social cognitive approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, North Carolina. Farrell, T. (2001). Critical friendships: Colleagues help each other develop. ELT Journal, 55(4), 368-374. Feger, S. (2004). How to develop a coaching eye. Journal of Staff Development Council, 25(2), 14-18. Flaherty, J. (2005). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Froelich, K., & Puig, E. A. (2007). The magic of coaching: Art meets science. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 3(1), 18-31. Gibson, S. A. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 295-318. Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self- efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254. Hamel, J. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. International Reading Association (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Johnson, S. M. (2009). Second-stage teachers and coaching: Building school capacity and a teaching career. Paper presented at 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. White Plains, NY: Longman, Inc. Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2005). 9 roles of the school- based coach. T3 Teachers Teaching Teachers, 1(1), 1-5. Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching. School Administrator, 63(4), 36-41. Knight, J. (Ed.) (2009) Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 10 Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Lockwood, J. R., Martorell, F., Gerwhwin, D., & Naftel, S. (2008). Implementation of Florida’s coaching program: The day-to-day work of coaches. In Authors, Supporting literacy across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches (pp. 81-117), Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Poglinco, S., & Bach, S. (2004) The heart of the matter: Coaching as a vehicle for professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 398- 402. Reed, L. A. (2005). Case study of the implementation of cognitive coaching by an instructional coach in a title I elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A& M University, Texas. Reeves, D. B. (2007). Leading to change: Coaching myths and realities. Educational Leadership, 5(2), 89-90. Reiss, K. (2007). Leadership coaching for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Spokane Public Schools. (2004). Instructional coaching model. Spokane, WA: Spokane Public Schools. Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 10-35). New York: Teachers College Press. Toll, C. A. (2004). Separating coaching from supervising. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory. Vacilotto, S., & Cummings, R. (2007). Peer coaching in TEFL/TESL Programs. ELT Journal, 61(2), 153- 160. West, C. (2012). Effective coaching strategies for increased use of research-based instructional strategies for linguistic diverse classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 155-316. Analysis of an Instructional Coach’s Role as Elementary School Language Teachers’ Professional Developer 11 Article Citation Chien, C. W. (2013). Analysis of an instructional coach’s role as elementary school language teachers’ professional developer. Current Issues in Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1004 Author Notes Chin-Wen Chien National Hsinchu University of Education 521, Nanda Rd., Hsinchu City 300, Taiwan chinwenc@ms24.hinet.net Chin-Wen Chien received her Doctor of Education degree from the University of Washington (Seattle, USA). She is an assistant professor in Department of English Instruction of National Hsinchu University of Education in Taiwan. Her research interests include language education, language teacher education, and curriculum and instruction. Manuscript received: 5/16/12 Revisions received: 10/8/12 Accepted:2/7/13 Current Issues in Education Vol. 16 No. 1 12 Volume 16, Number 1 February 21, 2013 ISSN 1099-839X Authors hold the copyright to articles published in Current Issues in Education. Requests to reprint CIE articles in other journals should be addressed to the author. Reprints should credit CIE as the original publisher and include the URL of the CIE publication. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article, provided CIE is credited and copies are not sold. Editorial Team Executive Editors Melinda A. Hollis Rory Schmitt Assistant Executive Editors Laura Busby Elizabeth Reyes Layout Editors Bonnie Mazza Elizabeth Reyes Recruitment Editor Hillary Andrelchik Copy Editors/Proofreaders Lucinda Watson Authentications Editor Lisa Lacy Technical Consultant Andrew J. Thomas Section Editors Hillary Andrelchik Michelle Crowley Ayfer Gokalp Darlene Michelle Gonzales Courtney Hart David Isaac Hernandez-Saca Sultan Kilinc Younsu Kim Linda S. Krecker Carol Masser Bonnie Mazza Constantin Schreiber Faculty Advisors Dr. Gustavo E. Fischman Dr. Jeanne M. Powers