Microsoft Word - v22n54-final3.doc


Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/   Manuscript received: 12/20/2013 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 5/2/2014 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 5/25/2014 
 

SPECIAL ISSUE 
Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring 

Programs 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 
 

Volume 22  Number 54  June 23rd  2014 ISSN 1068-2341 
 

 

Understanding Relationship: Maximizing the Effects of 
Science Coaching  

Ruth Anderson 
FACET Innovations 

Sue Feldman 
Lewis and Clark College 

& 
Jim Minstrell 

FACET Innovations 
   USA 
 

Citation:Anderson, R., Feldman, S & Minstrell, J. (2014). Understanding Relationship: Maximizing 
the Effects of Science Coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (54). 
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n54.2014. This article is part of EPAA/AAPE’s Special Issue 
on Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs, Guest Edited by Dr. Sarah Woulfin. 

 
Abstract: There is growing empirical evidence that instructional coaching can help teachers transfer 
their learning from professional trainings (e.g., new strategies) to classroom practice and that 
coaching promotes greater collaboration and reflection among teachers. At the same time, however, 
research on the effectiveness of particular coaching models and the underlying reasons for their 
effectiveness is only beginning to emerge. Why does coaching “work” when it does?  What causes it 
to break down and to what extent can it be repaired?  Our five-year mixed methods study of science 
instructional coaching in a single school district set out to answer these and other questions.  Data 
from multiple sources (surveys, interviews, classroom observations and coaching logs) confirmed a 

epaa aape



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

2 

strong correlation between improvements in teacher practice and the time teacher and coach spend 
together (at least 10 hours for elementary teachers and 20 for secondary) the focus of their work 
(narrow as opposed to broad); and most importantly, the quality of their professional relationship. 
In this paper, we present preliminary findings from a follow-up analysis intended to help explicate 
how relationships seemed to matter in coaching. We believe the findings from the secondary analysis 
help to clarify coaching interactions and to specify what contributes to or detracts from their 
productivity.  These findings may not only help to inform decisions related to the design, 
implementation and ongoing maintenance of coaching programs but also provide fodder for 
considerations related to the organizational capacity, flexibility and adaptability of the schools and 
school systems. 
Keywords: coaching, professional development, science education 
 
Comprendiendo relaciones: Maximizando los efectos de los entrenamientos/c o a c h i n g  en 
ciencias. 
Resumen: Existe creciente evidencia empírica que los entrenamientos/coachings pedagógicos pueden 
ayudar a los profesores a transferir sus aprendizajes de las capacitaciones profesionales (por ejemplo, 
nuevas estrategias) a práctica en el aula y que el  coaching promueve una mayor colaboración y 
reflexión entre los profesores. Sin embargo, la investigación sobre la eficacia de determinados 
modelos de coaching y las razones subyacentes de su efectividad no están suficientemente estudiadas 
¿Por qué funciona el coaching cuando lo hace? ¿Qué causa que el coaching no funcione y hasta qué 
punto puede ser reparado? Nuestros cinco años de estudios usando métodos mixtos sobre como  
entrenadores en el área de ciencias en un distrito escolar respondían a estas y otras preguntas. Los 
datos de múltiples fuentes (encuestas, entrevistas, observaciones en el aula y los registros de 
entrenamiento) confirmaron la fuerte correlación entre la mejora de la práctica docente y el tiempo 
que entrenador y profesores pasan juntos (al menos 10 horas para los maestros de primaria y 20 de 
secundaria) el enfoque de su trabajo (enfocado en comparación con amplio); y lo más importante, la 
calidad de la relación profesional. En este artículo presentamos los resultados preliminares de un 
análisis destinado a explicar cómo las relaciones serian importantes en coaching. Creemos que los 
resultados de este análisis ayuda para entender las interacciones en coaching para especificar lo que 
contribuye o resta valor a su productividad. Estos hallazgos no sólo pueden ayudar a informar las 
decisiones relacionadas con el diseño, la implementación y el mantenimiento continuo de programas 
de entrenamiento, sino también proporcionar elementos para las consideraciones relacionadas con la 
capacidad de organización, flexibilidad y capacidad de adaptación de las escuelas y los sistemas 
escolares.  
Palabras clave: entrenamiento/coaching; desarrollo profesional; enseñanza de las ciencias. 
 
Compreendendo relações: Maximizando o impacto dos treinamentos na ciência.  
Resumo: Há uma crescente evidência empírica de que os treinamentos podem ajudar os professores 
a transferir suas aprendizagem profissionais (por exemplo, novas estratégias) para a prática de sala de 
aula e treinamento promove uma maior colaboração e reflexão entre os professores. No entanto, a 
investigação sobre a eficácia de certos modelos de coaching e as razões subjacentes para a sua 
eficácia não estão suficientemente estudados. Porque o coaching funciona quando isso acontece? O 
que faz que esse treinamento não funcionei e como ele pode ser reparado? Nossos cinco anos de 
estudos utilizando métodos mistos de pesquisa sobre o treinamento na área de ciência em um 
distrito escolar respondeu a essas e outras perguntas. Dados de várias fontes (inquéritos, entrevistas, 
observações em sala de aula e registros de treinamento) confirmaram a forte correlação entre a 
melhoria da prática docente e o tempo que passam juntos treinador e professores (pelo menos 10 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

3 

horas para professores do ensino fundamental e 20 secundária) como abordam o trabalho 
(focalizadamente contra enfoquei amplo); e, mais importante, a qualidade da relação profissional. 
Neste artigo, apresentamos os resultados preliminares de nossa análise para explicar como as 
relações podem ser importantes em coaching. Acreditamos que os resultados desta análise ajuda a 
compreender as interações em coaching para especificar o que contribui ou prejudica a sua 
produtividade. Estes resultados não só pode ajudar a informar as decisões sobre a concepção, 
implementação e manutenção contínua de programas de treinamento, mas também fornecer 
elementos para as considerações relacionadas à capacidade de organização, flexibilidade e capacidade 
de adaptação das escolas e sistemas escolares.  
Palavras-chave: treinamento; desenvolvimento profissional; educação científica. 

Introduction 

Research has long suggested that ongoing, in-house professional development, such as 
instructional coaching, may be an effective tool for impacting classroom practice (e.g.,Cohen & Hill, 
2000; Costa & Garmston, 2002; Killion & Harrison, 2005; Kise, 2006; Knight, 2006, 2007; 
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Neufeld & Roper, 2003c; Stein & Coburn, 2007; Steiner & Kowal, 
2007).  There is also growing empirical evidence that coaching can help teachers transfer their 
learning from professional trainings (e.g., new strategies) to classroom practice (Hartnett-Edwards, 
2011; L. Hubbard, H. Mehan, & M.K. Stein, 2006; Joyce & Showers, 1982; Kertlow & 
Bartholomew, 2010) and that coaching promotes deeper professional reflection (Coggins, 2005; 
Coggins, Stoddard, & Cutler, 2003; Garet et al., 1999; Poglinco et al., 2003). Our own extended 
study of science instructional coaching in 15 schools, in a single school district had similar findings.  
Data from multiple sources across five years confirmed a strong correlation between improvements 
in teacher practice and the time teacher and coach spend together (at least 10 hours for elementary 
teachers and 20 for secondary) as well as the focus of their work (narrow and consistent as opposed 
to broad and multifaceted). These first two, however, consistently depended upon the quality of the 
coach-teacher relationship   

On the surface the importance of relationship seems obvious since coaching is mediated 
through interactions of a coach and a coachee. Everything a coach does, from initiating hallway 
conversations, to conducting classroom observations, to facilitating meetings, to developing and 
scoring classroom assessments has an implied, yet under-conceptualized, reliance on relationship 
(Gallucci, 2008; Gallucci, Boatright, Lysne, & Swinnerton, 2006; Taylor, 2008). Many of the early 
studies of coaching allude to the importance of relationships for coaching (Howe & Stubbs, 2003; 
Neufeld & Roper, 2003a; Ross, 1992; Schweiker-Marra, 1995; Sherrill, 1999; Showers, 1985; Smylie 
& Denny, 1990).  Several of these attribute a coach’s success to personal qualities including a 
positive disposition and good interpersonal communication skills (e.g., Knight, 2004, 2005, 2007; 
Kowal & Steiner, 2007; Mangin & Stoelinga, 2008a) pedagogical experience (Dole & Donaldson, 
2006; Kise, 2006; Wicker, 2006) and or content knowledge (Kesselheim, 1998; West & Staub, 2003). 
This was in part because instructional coaches were unlikely to be trained and would therefore need 
to rely on personal qualities to negotiate their work (Feger, Woleck, & Hickman, 2004; Harwell-Kee, 
1999; Neufeld & Roper, 2003b). A school’s culture of relationships has also been attributed to the 
success of coaching relationships (e.g., Akhavan, 2005; Richard, 2003). Reviews of the coaching 
literature (e.g., Borman, Feger, & Kawakami, 2006; Greene, 2004; Kertlow & Bartholomew, 2010; 
Neumerski, 2013), and subsequent research (e.g., Bean, Draper, & Hall, 2010; Ippolito, 2010; Marsh, 
Sloan-Mccombs, & Martorell, 2012; Matsumura, Garnier, & Resnick, 2010), continue to suggest the 
importance of “relationship” in coaching. However, there are few empirical studies of the nature of 
the coaching  relationship.  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

4 

By “coaching relationship” we are referring to coach-teacher interactions that move beyond 
friendly exchanges to one that is productive in terms of teacher and student effects. In Year Two of 
our science coaching study, relationship had already emerged as the pivotal element for coaching 
success, without which work-focus and time spent coaching did not seem to matter. The importance 
of relationship was not completely unexpected. We had assumed, like other researcher colleagues 
and the coaches themselves, that relationship building would be an important part of coaching—
particularly at the beginning. What we did not expect to find however, was that cultivating such 
relationships would be an ongoing endeavor (in most cases). This was true not just in the case of 
new staff coming in, but also with those teachers who had been “coached” for years. As late as Year 
Four of the study, for example, coaches one day would describe “going deep” with a teacher and the next day 
report that they had to “start all over” in their relationship building.  During a coaches’ meeting, one coach 
described the work as “two steps forward and one step backward,” the other coaches voiced similar 
observations or nodded affirmatively.1 This episode and the many up and down relationship 
storylines that appeared within each school case raised questions about the nature of coaching 
relationships and led to the secondary analysis of the data, and the focus of this paper. In the pages 
that follow, we hope to provide new (and perhaps actionable) insights into coaching relationships 
and propose some implications of such relationships for the larger system. We begin with a brief 
overview of the parent study and data sources relevant to the secondary analysis 

Study Context  

 The science coaching study was set in a mid-sized urban school district in the Northwest 
United States where six high schools, six middle schools and thirty-four elementary schools serve 
approximately 30,000 students. The district had instructional assistants/facilitators performing roles 
similar to coaches (primarily in mathematics and literacy) for about fifteen years, before the position 
of “coach” was introduced in 2003.  That year, the district developed a framework to implement 
coaching (now also in science) as a principle component of district professional development for 
teachers within the context of building-based professional learning communities. The supportive 
model of coaching had the long term goal of building capacity and the shorter term goal of 
facilitating the translation of school and district initiatives into classrooms. In most schools, 
participation in the coaching program was considered optional. 

Five elementary schools, 5 middle schools and 5 high schools actively participated as 
“coached” schools in the study. There were some changes in coaching assignments and coaches 
during the study period, but a stable core of 10 coached schools (4 elementary, 3 middle and 3 high 
schools) remained through the end of the study.  

Participants 

Science coaches 
 A total of twelve full- time and part-time science coaches (FTE from .2 to 1.0) participated 

in the study, with eight actively serving the core 10 schools in a given year. The coaches were 
selected from within the school district and assigned to one or two schools—frequently one in 
which they had taught.  All were experienced science teachers with acknowledged content and 
instructional expertise, 2 and most of them had 10-20 years of classroom experience when they took 
on the role of coach.  
                                                
1 Literacy and mathematics coaches conveyed similar experiences in surveys. 
2 For 7 of the coaches, observational data gathered before the start of the study served to confirm their instructional 
expertise.  



U nderstanding relationship 

 

5 

The majority of coaches had prior experience as an adult educator, either as a mentor, 
cooperating teacher with teacher interns or delivering professional development for teachers.  
Coaches received general training in mentoring adult learners as well as periodic specialized training 
to support teachers in implementing core district initiatives and related strategies.  Science coaches 
also met as a group (elementary and secondary) twice a month for a half-day science-specific 
professional development led by the district Science Coordinator (also a former coach). 

Teachers 
Approximately 180 elementary and secondary science teachers participated in the study at 

different levels or “tiers” of participation.  Tier 1, the most active level of participation, consisted of 
16 teachers (6 elementary, 5 middle school, and 5 high school) who participated in multiple 
consecutive classroom observations (video recorded at the secondary level) for 2-3 years, responded 
to yearly surveys, and were interviewed 2-3 times during each year of participation.  Tiers 2 and 3 
included elementary and secondary teachers who participated in one or more of the activities 
described for Tier1.  

Other participants 
Survey and interview data were also gathered from building administrators (principals and 

assistant principals), non-science instructional coaches (e.g., literacy or mathematics), un-coached 
teachers, and various district personnel. Data collected from these groups helped to round out the 
picture of coaching that emerged at individual case schools. 

Data Collection  

Data collection for the study began in earnest in the 2006-07 school year after a start up year 
devoted to revision of the study design, developing instruments and measures, and recruiting 
teachers for the following fall. Data collection in this start up year focused primarily on testing 
instruments. During the next four years, data collection took place during regular monthly visits to 
the district.  Table 1 below provides an overview of only those data collection activities that 
contributed to the secondary analysis discussed in this paper, followed by brief descriptions of how 
specific data sources contributed to that analysis. 
Table 1:  
Data Collection Activities, Fall 2005 - Spring 2010 

Source Activity  (totals 2005-2010) 2005-
06 

2006-
07 

2007-
08 

2008-
09 

2009-
10 

Science 
coaches 

Surveys & Reflections (111)  X X X X 
Interviews (48) X X X X X 
On-line coaching log entries  
(8626) 

 X X X X 

Observations  (approx.75) X X X X X 

Teachers 

Surveys (441)  X X X X 
Interviews (81)  X X X  
Collaboration time 
observations 

 X X X X 

Building 
Administrators 

Surveys (38) X  X X  
Interviews  (18) X X X X X 

Non-Science 
coaches 

Surveys   (12)    X  
Interviews (12)    X  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

6 

  

Observations  
Researchers attended the coaches’ meeting at least once a month during the school year.  In 

addition, each coach was observed at least three times a year while facilitating teacher collaborative 
time, professional development or one-on-one meetings with their teachers. On a few occasions, 
researchers “shadowed” a coach through the entire workday. Field notes were taken during these 
events and included in the ongoing site visit summaries completed with each round of data 
collection. 

The online coaching log 
The online coaching log was developed in Year One of the study in close collaboration with 

the coaches, but not used as a data collection tool until the second year of the study. Years 2 
through 5, coaches regularly recorded their work with and for teachers in one of three formats (one-
on-one; group work; support or “behind the scenes” activities) and submitted monthly3. For 
example, in the one-on-one and group logs, coaches would select the name(s) of the teacher(s) they 
worked with and indicate the approximate amount of time they had spent with the teacher(s) in a 
particular activity (e.g., debrief, lesson planning, co-teaching, analyzing student work, etc.). They 
would also indicate the focus of activity (e.g., teacher content knowledge, pedagogy, curriculum, etc.) 
and who had initiated the interaction (teacher, coach, mutual or administrator).  Insights, 
professional learning, challenges and successes were recorded in optional text boxes labeled 
“comment” and “powerful moments.”  These qualitative entries helped researchers to track 
individual relationship “stories” that could be followed up on through interviews and surveys while 
the quantitative aspects (time spent in activities and specific categories of activities) provided insight 
into the depth of interactions.  

Surveys 
Surveys were designed with a core set of common questions across stakeholder versions to 

provide multiple perspectives on specific dimensions of coaching as it evolved in each school 
context. In addition to gathering information about education and work background, roles within 
the school, school climate, culture, and professional practice (e.g. teaching, coaching, collaboration), 
the surveys asked respondents specifics about their current experience with coaching, including time 
spent in specific activities, the focus of the work and the nature and perceived quality of their 
coaching relationship(s). After each round of surveys, the researchers conducted a sample of brief 
follow-up phone interviews to clarify and confirm survey responses.  Coach reflections, a subset of the 
surveys, were administered to coaches approximately once a quarter. These brief online 
questionnaires would typically pose a common question to all the coaches, and then hone in on 
case-specific themes that had emerged elsewhere in the research data with regard to coaching at that 
school. Coach reflections allowed the researchers to more closely examine the particulars of specific 
teacher-coach interactions and relationships  

Interviews 
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the science coaches and Tier 1 teachers on 

a yearly basis, while others (administrators, non-science coaches, teachers outside the sample) were 
interviewed as feasible or deemed necessary. Teachers in the sample represented a broad range of 

                                                
3 For activities in a given month, coaches were able to log entries at any time through the first 10 days of the next 
month. After that time, however, the log for the month would close and additional entries (or changes to existing 
entries) had to be made through the research team. This helped to keep the entries current and data monitoring 
feasible. 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

7 

involvement with coaching in a given school and therefore a range of perspectives on and 
experience with coaching interactions. The face-to-face interviews with teachers (as opposed to the 
post survey phone interviews) were important to counterbalance the predominant coach perspective 
within the data.  

Data Analysis 

 Analysis of data from the individual instruments mentioned above was ongoing. And while 
qualitative and quantitative analyses were completed independently, they worked in concert to 
inform subsequent data collection and the revision of instruments.   This allowed us to maintain a 
close “conversation” with the data and provided us with direction even when statistical power was 
not available. Survey summaries and monthly summary reports of the coaching log results for 
individual coaches are two examples of interim reports of data that were regularly created and shared 
with the study stakeholders. This practice gave us regular benchmarks for reflection on the 
development of coaching across the district and in individual schools. 

Atlas.ti software was used to organize and analyze the qualitative data (interview 
transcriptions, coaching log and open-ended responses survey responses, etc.), which were 
organized by coaching assignment (single school or two schools). A coding scheme developed in the 
second year of data created “bins” broadly aligned with the research questions of the larger study, 
and coding was conducted as both a primary analysis and as a constant comparison process (Glaser 
& Strauss, 1999).  

In Year 4 (2008-09), the various streams of qualitative and quantitative data were brought 
together into a “case framework” or report (Merriam, 1998) in order to integrate and reduce data 
from individual instruments and research activities (Creswell & Clark, 2007) and build school-based 
cases of science coaching. Prioritizing those cases with the most complete sets of teacher and coach 
data, we developed seven frameworks  to “hold” the story of science coaching across time, and 
across changes in staff (including coaches), leadership and initiatives. These labor-intensive products 
(40-60 pages each) helped to highlight correlations across instruments within a case and patterns and 
themes across cases. Most important to our purposes here, the frameworks provided the clearest 
view of the ebb and flow of the coaching relationships—the relationship between coach and 
teacher(s) and between coaching and the school context. 
 While the codes clued us into potential storylines, the case frameworks reduced the data to 
essential elements of each school “coaching story.” The chronological flow of events, attitudes and 
perceptions not only allowed us to trace the changing appearance of relationship, but also possible 
causes and conditions (e.g., changes in building leadership, new initiatives, changes in assignments, 
etc. 

Exploring Relationship  

Early on, we had anticipated that coaches’ relationships with administrators, teachers and 
other coaches would be important supports/constraints on their work and had developed codes for 
these. Additionally we had codes for coaching dilemmas and for resolution to those dilemmas, 
which we soon observed were most often cross-coded with one or more of the relationship codes. 
We could see that successful coaching was not well characterized as a linear process of establishing 
relationships and then “getting to work.” The ups and downs did not seem to be a reflection of the 
personal disposition or skills of the coach or the teacher, but rather seemed to result from the situated 
interaction between coach and teacher.  Coaches, and teachers seemed aware of the potentially vulnerable 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

8 

space in their professional interactions, as teachers would be asked to open their classroom to allow 
an “outsider” to look critically at their practice:  

…  There needs to be trust between the two, so that you feel that you can express your ideas, and then you 
need the openness of the other party in order to be able to feel like your ideas are accepted, rather than 
constantly just being shut down.      

(high school teacher, interview 2009) 
 
In order for a coach to be successful I believe there needs to be a relationship built between coach and [teacher] 
mentee.  If there is no trust, change is not going to happen.    

(elementary school teacher, survey 2008) 
 

Many statements similar to those above suggested that the teacher-coach “relationship” was 
synonymous with the notion of trust.  And while this was not surprising, we were still faced with the 
challenge of teasing out smaller features of coaching interactions that would help to explain why or 
how some teacher-coach interactions seemed to lead to productive activity while others did not.  

In order to produce greater specificity in our own descriptions of what was happening in and 
between these coaching cases, we looked for a framework to provide an analytic lens for a close 
analysis of our “relationship” code reports. Noting that trust was mentioned commonly in 
participants’ references to relationships we turned to theories of trust (e.g., Deutsch, 1960; Forsyth, 
Adams, & Hoy, 2011; Fukuyama, 1995; Hoy, 1999; Sztompka, 1999; Tschannen-Moran, 2004) to 
gain a better understanding of how trust might matter in these bumpy coaching trajectories with 
their breaks and repairs. We finally settled on relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002) as a probable 
framework for dealing with both the situational quality of the relationships we were observing and 
the foundational importance of “trust” that our practitioner colleagues kept referencing.  

Relational Trust 

Relational trust is a kind of interpersonal trust that is generated in interactions between 
people, rather than a personal attribute that an individual may carry with them (e.g.,Galford & 
Drapeau, 2002; Hoy, 1999) or a fund someone holds as in a bank account (Dika & Singh, 2002). 
Relational trust suggests that trust is a feature of the moment-to-moment interaction between 
people, as coaching itself may be explained as a moment-to-moment interaction between people. 
Composed of four dynamically-related and overlapping components (personal regard, respect, 
integrity and competence), relational trust may increase or diminish in each interaction as the 
participants demonstrate and discern or do not discern those key components. 

In their longitudinal study of Chicago Public Schools, the researchers documented a strong 
statistical link between the composite level of relational trust among school role groups (teachers-
principal; teachers-parents; parents-principal, etc.) and the level of organizational health and 
academic improvement in a school (Bryk, Schneider, 2002).  Their study did not distinguish between 
the roles of teacher and coach, but their description of a dynamic interpersonal trust was consistent 
with what we had been hearing from coaches and teachers as they described the challenge of having 
“deep” conversations and engaging in truly collaborative work. Drawing on Bryk and Schneider, we 
modified the four component definitions to the following:   

• Personal Regard:  show of care and consideration for other person; a willingness to “go the 
extra yard” for colleagues 

• Respect:  regard for the dignity and worth of another; the demonstration of a genuine 
interest in other person’s point of view 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

9 

• Competence: ability to carry out the responsibilities of one’s role 
• Integrity:  transparency and honesty in one’s work; dependably keeping one’s word and 

acting in a way that is congruent with one’s expected role;  
Next we reanalyzed the broadly coded “relationship” and “challenge/dilemma” bins within the 

qualitative data, using the components of relational trust.  We found more than ninety percent of 
coaching relationship instances previously coded as  “breakdowns” (i.e., lack of engagement or a 
suspension of engagement) or “repairs” (i.e., engaging or re-engaging in coaching) were explained 
either by one or more of the relational trust components or by “role synchrony” (described in a later 
section). Below we provide some examples.   

Personal regard 
Personal regard was the attribute most commonly used by teachers describing their 

relationship with the coach.  This powerful dimension of trust in any organization may be even 
more crucial in the relationship-based environment of schools, where isolated practitioners may 
become vulnerable just by opening their classroom to an observer.  In such an environment, any 
actions taken to reduce another’s feeling of vulnerability communicate personal regard (Bryk, 
Schneider, 2002).  In the context of coaching, actions taken by the coach to create a “safe” 
environment for sharing ideas and practice could constitute such actions.  According to Bryk, the 
display of personal regard in school environments also involves the willingness of participants to 
extend themselves beyond what is formally required by a job description or contract.  They would 
describe the coach as likeable, friendly, caring, for example, or willing to go out of their way to help.  
The quote below captures a teacher’s discernment of the coach’s willingness to go out of her way: 

I think she's gone above and beyond… The sheer number of hours that she's put in… we're all at very 
different places with science content.  And …we would work together, but she would be more than willing to 
work with us in addition to that if we needed something.                                           
                                                                             (elementary school teacher, 2010) 

 
We did not find explicit expressions of a lack of personal regard among coach and teacher 

descriptions of coaching.  This was not surprising, as courtesy and politeness are very basic tender 
within organizations and it is not likely that such feelings would have been readily shared with the 
researchers.  In addition, given that a relationship is essential for coaches to do their jobs, it is 
unlikely that they would readily misstep in the realm of basic courtesy.  

Where basic personal regard is lacking between colleagues, there is little chance of finding 
trust.  Below, a secondary teacher recounts an extreme example of lack of personal regard that 
undermined the possibility of trust with a colleague (not a coach) at his new school: 

I went around my very first year that I was here, and I was trying to put together what… a lab write-up is 
going to look like...I talked to a number of teachers about this.  When I came to one of my colleagues, 
basically he said, ‘I think this is stupid… there’s no need for this.  The kids should be able to adapt to 
whatever it is that you throw at them, blah blah blah.’  I still remember this conversation [from] four years 
ago… that blew relationships out of the water.  That blew trust out of the water.  That blew any opportunity 
for a deep conversation with that individual …  

           (high school teacher, interview, 2009) 
 

The attitude conveyed by the veteran teacher described in the above quote was not uncommon at 
the school.  Perhaps not surprisingly, coaching there did not take hold very easily or fully among the 
staff. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

10 

Respect 
Respect in an interaction is “marked by a genuine sense of listening” that is confirmed when 

subsequent actions take into consideration what was expressed. Social exchanges lacking in 
interpersonal respect break down as participants avoid or react negatively to what they perceive to 
be a “demeaning” situation (Bryk, Schneider, 2002).   In the context of coaching, coaches frequently 
showed respect to individual teachers by listening to their concerns and having them determine the 
focus and goals of the coaching work.  The following quote from a middle school teacher presents 
an example of a “repair” in the area of respect in coaching.  A teacher recalls in an interview how the 
coach, who was then new to the position and without a clearly defined role, chose to listen to and 
follow the teacher’s lead rather than insist on adhering to the protocol for a Lesson Study like 
activity:  

… it felt like district had given us a spy… and so we together started questioning everything as a department.  
And [the coach] just kind of stepped back and said, "I'm listening."  And so we went from [spending] the 
entire day…six teachers in a classroom…and you write all this data and you were exhausted and mad by 
the end of the day to, "Let's videotape" … so what we got was really authentic dialog and information… 
we'd go through the whole regular [Professional Learning Lab] process but it morphed into what worked for 
us…. I loved when we all went, "I don't want to do this anymore, can we do it this [another] way?"  And it 
was that moment of this is ours, because we have this opportunity…video PLLs were like ours.  And that 
was really, really, really cool.     

        (middle school teacher, interview 2010) 
 
By choosing to listen at that particular moment, the coach managed to assuage her 

colleagues fears that a “spy” had been placed among them. From the time of that event the teachers 
in that department embarked on a period of focused collaboration and unprecedented sharing 
among the faculty of classroom practice through video. 

Teachers also interpreted coaches’ behavior as “respectful” when they (coaches) 
acknowledged teacher autonomy and deferred to their schedules and preferences.  Below, an 
elementary teacher contrasts the approach of two coaches with whom she had worked, highlighting 
the distinction between respectful and disrespectful behavior:  

…let’s say I’m working on something and I’m in the middle of something before or after school, and [the 
science coach] will come in and say, “Here. We’ve got to talk about this, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .”  
Pretty soon, 15 minutes have passed and I have to go get my kiddos [from lunch] and I didn’t get to 
finish…I am looking at the clock, trying to get stuff done… I never felt that with [the other coach].  [She] 
was more, “How can I support you? Let’s meet after school.  Let’s set up a time where we can meet and then 
we’ll talk about it”…not as much “last minute.”      

(elementary school teacher, interview 2008) 
 

Situations coded for respect were frequently associated with teacher perceptions of their 
own competence.  For example, elementary teachers would express feelings of increased confidence 
and competence as a result of working with a coach. They also expressed gratitude for not being 
made to feel less than capable in the process of learning, as illustrated in the quote below: 

[The coach] makes it easy for us to come to her and say, “Honestly, I'm looking at this lesson and I'm not 
really sure what it is we're getting at here.  Can you help me?”  She's willing to plan with me…she has made 
it so easy for me to get help without ever feeling intimidated.  She never ever makes me feel like she's 
evaluating me in any way.  She celebrates my successes and says, “Oh, look, my gosh, [teacher name], look 
how far you’ve come!”  And it makes me want to do more.  

            (elementary school teacher, interview, 2010) 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

11 

 

C o m p e t e n c e  
Competence refers to the perception of one’s ability  perform their role.  Within the study 

data, science coach competence appeared to be tightly connected to both the coach’s science 
content knowledge and classroom teaching experience.  For example, in each of the five annual 
teacher surveys administered during the study, teachers across grade levels consistently rated the 
following attributes of a coach’s status in their top three requisites for “effective coaching”: “science 
content expert,” “proven master teacher” and (in the case of many elementary teachers) “the ability 
to work successfully in the classroom with students.” 4  

If personal regard permitted coaches to be acknowledged as colleagues by their teachers, the 
coach’s competence in science learning and teaching seemed to give them the professional collateral 
needed to begin to establish a strong professional relationship with a teacher:  

After knowing her as a person and her history and her background as an elementary teacher, you have a 
certain level of respect because she's been through the war, so to speak.  I don't have the time to listen to a 
newbie tell me what theoretically it should look like if you haven't been in the trenches. 
                                                             (elementary school teacher, 2009 interview) 
 
The greatest variability in teachers’ perception of coach competence with regard to content 

knowledge was among high school teachers.  Teachers trained in one science discipline were 
occasionally skeptical that a coach trained in another discipline of science could provide useful 
counsel.  As one high school teacher explained: 

There are so many different curriculums and such a great number of teachers that I don’t believe…there’s any 
possible way to do any justice to any given classroom -- let alone all of them...     

      (high school teacher, interview 2008) 
 

In many cases, however, high school teachers managed to focus less on the coach’s 
particular subject area background, and more on their pedagogical expertise: 

My idea of a coach is to be able to help [teachers] implement good student-centered types of activities and 
lessons…They don’t necessarily need to know the details of the content in order to do that.  It’s truly an 
instructional coach and not a content coach.     

         (high school teacher, interview 2008) 
  

Perspectives on the purpose of coaching varied widely between some teachers, across grade 
levels and even between school roles.  Elementary administrators, for example, unanimously 
expressed in survey responses that the purpose of coaching was to support teachers of all experience 
levels.  Meanwhile, a substantial portion of secondary administrators (especially in the early years of 
the study) said that the primary goal of coaching was to support new and struggling teachers.  (This 
sort of variance has obvious implications for the perceived competence--and therefore effectiveness-
-of instructional coaches.) 

                                                
4 By contrast, administrators often ranked other attributes and skills as more important (e.g. that the coach be pragmatic, 
actively identify and address issues, “fix” problems).  These suggest that teachers and administrators may be looking at 
different qualities when they discern “competence.”  This may, therefore, have consequences for coaches establishing 
themselves within a school. 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

12 

Integrity 
 Integrity involves the ability to depend on what people say and their ability to keep their 

word.  Coaches demonstrated integrity by being reliable, open and honest with the teachers with 
whom they worked.  They also demonstrated integrity when their actions were consistent with their 
talk.  One example of this was shared by a teacher who had been working with the coach on 
improving his questioning skills reached a moment of frustration in class: 

…there was something we [the students and I] just couldn’t get and I finally just said [to the coach], “Look, 
I’ve used up everything I can think of. YOU come up here and figure it out.” So he literally got up from the back of 
the room, went up, and finished the questioning for the rest of the class, and then we debriefed afterwards. 

      (high school teacher, 2009) 
In the above scenario, as the coach “comes to the rescue” and immediately performs as the 

teacher expected, he demonstrated both integrity and competence. Integrity scenarios were not 
easily captured in the data—perhaps because “follow-through” and dependability are usually 
illustrated through two-part scenarios (like “resolutions” which require some initial problem). 
Occasionally in an interview, teachers would refer to the dependability of their coach, but overall 
integrity was the most illusive of the four components. We found the strongest evidence of integrity 
in the negative examples or the descriptions of a lack of integrity when a coaching interaction broke 
down.  For example, in the following quote a novice second career teacher recalls a brief breakdown 
in his relationship with the coach when he perceived an implicit agenda behind her questions: 

She would come in, make her observations, and get to the “I noticed, I wonder.” And what we did with the 
“wonder” part was there was some rhetorical wonderings in there.  And I said, “Look, if you’re wondering 
about something, just ask me.”  And so, I think that was the biggest bump in our relationship.  I said, “If 
you’ve got something on your mind, don’t ask me a question about it if you already have an answer in your 
head.  Just tell me what you’re thinking and let’s work from that point.”  So I think that [is] where we are 
right now.  I feel very comfortable with her coming in and she’s been in on days that were like, “Oh my god” 
kind of days.  And she’s been in on other days, too…  

        (middle school teacher, interview 2007) 
It is not clear to us why integrity is illusive in our data. Teachers demonstrate integrity in 

their classrooms commonly, but the demonstration and discernment of integrity between teachers 
and teachers and coaches was less apparent. One possibility is that integrity intercepts with role 
synchrony in a way that made it difficult to tell one from the other. For example, in the case of one 
elementary school where the teachers freely changed their instructional day, making it difficult for 
the coach to observe science instruction, during the planned time for a science observation. This 
was not seen by the coach as a lack of integrity, but instead as the need to align her expectations 
with actual working conditions of the teachers, which were flexible and responsive to student 
learning and emergent teachable moments, which easily moved the class off their planned schedule. 
It is also possible that at the time of this study when collaboration between teachers was an 
emerging practice integrity might have been a weak area for increasing trust between teachers. There 
is enough left unknown about this particular finding that it warrants further study. As teacher 
collaboration has become more normalized in schools, it would be interesting to go back to these 
schools to see how integrity and ultimately trust operates in their work now and in the future.  

Role Synchrony 

 In theory, role synchrony is the foundation upon which relational trust exists.  The concept 
is similar to role alignment in that it describes the relationship between expectations and witnessed 
actions: 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

13 

Effective practice requires a synchrony between parties, both in terms of general understandings about each 
other’s expectations and obligations and in terms of the interpretations made about the specific behavior 
occurring.  For a school community to work well, synchrony must characterize all role sets.    
      (Bryk & Schneider, 2004, p. 125) 

 
 Here we are use the term to refer specifically to the ongoing adjustments made by teachers 
and coaches in order to align themselves to one another’s expectations. Within the supportive (as 
opposed to directive) model of coaching we were studying, we found the burden of expectation 
alignment fell primarily to coaches, who seemed to continually shift roles between teachers and with 
teachers as their work together progressed over time.  In some cases, within the same school, the 
coach might be positioned as a mentor with one teacher, a resource provider with another and a co-
teacher with yet another. Early in the study, for example, the elementary coaches worked closely 
with students in the classroom even though it was not explicitly part of the district model (or their 
own vision) for science coaching.  They did this in part to satisfy the expectations of their 
teachers—many of whom had prior experience with literacy and math coaches, both of whom 
frequently worked directly with students.  Later, as those coaches provided additional support in 
data analysis, assessment development and co-teaching, teachers’ expectations of the coach shifted 
away from direct student interventions.  
 Getting in sync and staying in sync with teachers’ expectations seemed to rely on continuous 
adjustments in expectation alignment. We found that when there was role synchrony, coaching was 
likely to be initiated or continued.  When coaching broke down, it could be attributed to one or 
more components of relational trust or a lack of role synchrony.  For example, if a coach did 
something that thwarted teachers’ expectations of the coach’s role, no matter how well it was done 
the coach’s competence could not be discerned: 

We did have a [problem] about mid-year when I decided that it would be a good idea to collect some baseline 
data around questioning (passive vs. overt-covert) that was occurring in classrooms. The trouble was that I did 
not do a very good job in communicating the purpose of collecting the data and how it would be used. (It was 
to be for teachers only, so that we could measure our growth as we worked on implementing engagement 
strategies around questioning.)  It turned out that it caused a bit of grief...some of the teachers thought that I 
was collecting the data to be evaluative and were offended.  

              (middle school coach, survey 2008) 
 The above example, from the coach’s point of view, she was doing what coaches are 
supposed to do—provide data to allow teachers to reflect on their practice.  From the teachers’ 
perspective, however, the coach seemed engaged in an evaluative activity and was therefore “acting 
like an administrator” rather than as a teacher colleague or coach.  As was true in many of these 
breakdown situations, repair was enacted through clarification and re-alignment of expectations.  In 
this case the situation was quickly remedied when the coach explored the teachers’ thwarted 
expectations. Reflecting on and inquiring into the dynamics of the coaching meeting is a coaching 
practice, and in this situation, seemed to repair the break in role expectation as the coach’s reflection 
on and inquiry into the teachers’ expectations aligned with coaching practice rather than 
administrative practice, reestablishing the coach in her expected role. In several other instances, on 
the other hand, similar breakdowns were not repaired so easily. 

Role Shifting: The Teacher-Administrator Continuum   

 The tendency to put the coach on a teacher-administrator continuum (as suggested in the 
last section) was not uncommon.  We found many instances in which teachers, administrators, 
coaches and even researchers (at first) would place coaches along a continuum ranging from 
“teacher like” on one end (i.e., supporting and advocating for teachers, working with students) to 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

14 

“administrator like” (i.e., prescribing and evaluating practice, etc.) on the other end.  It is, after all, 
consistent with the traditional organizational dynamic of schools, where teachers and principals are 
the primary roles in the power structure.  However, the introduction of coaches may alter this 
dichotomy by opening up new middle ground.  One science coach described her own discovery of 
the awkward in-between space occupied by coaches: 

I was learning how to coach as I went.  And so I made a lot of mistakes, and I was sort of taking advantage 
of [friendships, thinking] that, "Well, you're my friend, so I can make these mistakes and it's all going to be 
okay."  And there was a pivotal moment where I kind of realized that being a coach is this sort of weird gray 
area where I am sort of shoulder-to-shoulder with the science teachers in the department, but I'm also kind of 
shoulder-to-shoulder with the administration.  And it's a weird kind of space.  Some personal friendships 
didn't make it through that space; professional relationships definitely endured.  But that was a real turning 
point for me in seeing myself as a leader and seeing how important it is to truly understand the how and the 
why of the things I'm asking people to do, and where I need to cross the line to say, "We're not going to do it 
this way, because this truly is going to be more important for you guys," and then be able to turn around and 
say to the other people on the other side[i.e. administrators], "We didn't do it that way, and this is why," and 
… have that confidence in myself to make that call and stand that line.  So I sort of realized that there’s 
kind of a teeter-totter of coaching...      

          (middle school coach, interview 2010) 
 
 For some coaches this “teeter-totter of coaching” along the teacher-administrator 
continuum was exacerbated by holding the concurrent actual role of teacher or administrator intern.  
For coaches who also taught, the assignment seemed to reinforce their “teacher-like” (as opposed to 
“administrator like”) role.  This common sentiment is expressed in the teacher quote below as he 
implies that coaches only engage in “real work” when they engage in the work of teachers:  
 

Somebody who is coaching a few periods and you know they’re teaching…well, you still respect them because 
they’re teaching…they’re still in it. … I mean, they may be working their tail off, but in your mind as a 
teacher, you’re not really working unless you’re teaching, because you don’t have kids.  

            (high school teacher interview, 2009) 
 

Individuals assigned to both coach and teach were also learning to use their expertise as 
classroom teachers to inform work that positioned them differently with their colleagues, for at least 
part of each day, if not entirely.  One coach described this shift from classroom teacher to coach as 
follows:  

 
The shift in roles (from colleague to coach) has been the greatest challenge in building relationships 
and communicating with teachers.  The teachers I coach are the same teachers I have worked next 
door to for the last 10 years.  As a colleague, the conversations I had with teachers did not 
necessarily have a goal or a particular focus.  I was the teacher next door, someone to bounce ideas 
off of and plan with.  As 'the coach', conversation expectations and focus are much different and it 
has taken me some time to adjust.    

              (middle school coach, survey 2008) 
 
This quotation underscores the interplay between role synchrony and relational trust in 

coaching.  The theory of relational trust commonly articulated in the literature asserts that role 
synchrony is foundational to relational trust in that the four components of personal regard, respect, 
integrity and competence are rarely discerned if role expectations are not synchronized.  However, in 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

15 

the supportive model of coaching that we studied, coaches were constantly shifting their role to 
adapt to teacher expectations--not the other way around--even as they worked to revise those 
expectations based on their own perception (and expectation) for their role as coach.  Given that the 
role of coach and purpose of coaching varied across schools and individuals and changed over time, 
this meant that coaches were continually discovering, creating and revising their role within each 
interaction and coaches’ roles were continuously flexible and responsive. Even within stable 
coaching assignments, changes in activity could misalign expectations requiring continuous attention 
to revising and clarifying expectations.  

 Coaches as Trust Builders 

 Within the study data, we found mostly a one-sided model of relational trust between 
teachers and coaches. That is to say, while teachers needed to discern (and coaches need to display) 
respect, competence, integrity and personal regard in order for teacher-coach work to happen, the 
opposite did not seem to be true. Although coaches sometimes seemed to avoid working with 
certain teachers (perhaps in part due to the teacher’s lack of display of respect and personal regard), 
this was certainly not the norm. Since a viable coach-teacher relationship is essential to a coach being 
able to do his/her job, it stands to reason that whether or not the coach discerns qualities of trust on 
the part of the teacher, the coach will engage in relationship-building actions. In this way, coaches 
function as trust builders within at least a portion of the organization.  

Without trust, teachers are unlikely to cooperate or collaborate. In schools where people are 
pressed for time and interactions are often truncated or aborted due to schedule pressures, it can be 
a challenge to demonstrate and discern much in an interaction. Additionally the habits and routine 
practices in schools may not lend themselves to these demonstrations. Teachers pass each other in 
hall all day long and are unlikely to acknowledge each other simply because of the routine nature of 
the interaction. On the other hand, we know that where trust is strong among school faculty, there 
is greater organizational health (Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy & Sabo 1998, cited in Forsythe, Adams and 
Hoy, 2011), which in turn is conducive for individuals to initiate and sustain long-term 
improvements (Bryk, Schneider, 2002). 

The school principal has traditionally been charged with building professional community 
and the care of school climate and to date few have explored the contribution of coaches and 
coaching in this realm. However, given the dynamic nature of teaching and the time needed to 
engage in meaningful professional interactions (among other factors), coaches seem particularly well 
positioned for the task. For one thing, because they are not administrators (non-supervisory) and 
because they are (at least in our study) experienced teachers of the same academic discipline, they 
share social similarity with their teacher colleagues-- an important dimension of role synchrony that 
undergirds trust. (Kochanek, 2005) For another, trust building is already a large part of their day-to-
day work as we have seen.  

Coaches seem to foster trustworthy environments as they create the context for risk taking, 
being vulnerable and as they carry out trustworthy actions. We found evidence of coaches modeling 
and co-teaching science lessons on the fly or at the request of their teachers. At such times they were 
showing themselves willing to take the same risks as their colleagues. Content-specific coaches 
residing within a department are also well situated to leverage the trustworthy environment in ways 
that are meaningful in terms of learning and teaching in the discipline and that prompt greater 
academic productivity. Over the first three years of the study, we saw teachers’ weekly collaborative 
sessions become more productive and focused on learning when coaches were regular facilitators as 
compared to what transpired at un-coached schools or where coaches had limited access. As 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

16 

coaches move between classrooms, grade levels, schools and school role groups (e.g., administrators 
and teachers), sharing information, knowledge and experience, they are helping to build shared 
knowledge, experience and community/culture.  Consequently, coaches and their integral work of 
building trusting relationships may be for cultivating and maintaining the organizational health of a 
department of school. At the same time coaching, from a systemic perspective, may be a potent 
mechanism for building and maintain the organizational health (including flexibility and adaptability) 
of an entire district.   

Implications and Future Directions 

For this paper, we have drawn on a larger study of science instructional coaching within a 
single school district and of a particular model (i.e. supportive) and therefore our findings are not 
necessarily generalizable to other disciplines or contexts. Nevertheless, we believe that much of what 
we have learned applies to instructional coaching writ large and may have both practical and 
theoretical contributions for the field. 

In our investigation into relational trust and role synchrony with regard to coaching, we have 
tried not only to specify some of the complexity of coaching interactions, but also to challenge the 
traditional view of such relationships as being heavily dependent on personal attributes or as 
something that can/must be established before the “real work” of coaching begins. We believe this 
information could be useful in the design and implementation of coaching programs and in the 
training of coaches.  To what extent, for example, might the components of relational trust serve as 
guidelines in designing an effective coaching program? 

We have largely focused on individual coach-teacher relationships in illustrating relational 
trust and role synchrony, but the more intriguing finding is perhaps the coach’s role as “trust 
builder” and the questions it raises regarding the larger organizational role of coaching.  We are not 
the first researchers to consider the potential value of coaching from a systemic perspective, but as 
far as we know, there is no significant related research agenda to date.  Yet there are several that we 
are interested in.  For example, do coaches and coaching build trust (as we have suggested) or do 
coaching and coaching relation simply thrive in environments where trust is already cultivated? What 
are the collective effects of ever more trusting interactions taking place in schools over time and 
what is the measureable contribution of coaching to increased levels of trust? Beyond the role of  
“trust builder” in what ways might coaches and coaching be contributing to the overall 
organizational health of a school or a district? At the level of the system, what are the implications of 
introducing a possible third role into the traditional dichotomy of school structure? The resulting 
organizational effects warrant further investigation in order to better understand the ultimate 
potential of coaching as both a function of the system and a tool to promote organizational health.  



U nderstanding relationship 

 

17 

References  

Akhavan, N. (2005). Creating and sustaining a collaborative culture. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 
34(5), 20-23.  

Bean, R. M., Draper, J. A., & Hall, V. (2010). Coaches and coaching in reading first 
schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114.  
Borman, J., Feger, S., & Kawakami, N. (2006). Instructional Change: Key Themes from the 

Literature. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University  
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools:  A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation. 
Coggins, C.T. (2005). Coaching as a districtwide reform strategy. (Ph.D.), Stanford University.    
Coggins, C.T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003). Improving instructional capacity through school-based reform 

coaches. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research 
Association, Chicago, IL.  

Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The 
mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.  

Costa, A.L., & Garmston, R.J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, 
MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. 

Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: 
Sage Publications, Inc. 

Deutsch, M. (1960). Critique and Notes "Trust, trustworthiness, and the f scale". Journal of Abnormal 
and Social Psychology, 61(1), 138-140.  

Dika, S., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of Social Capital in Education Literature Review of 
Education Research, 72(1), 31-60.  

Dole, J.A., & Donaldson, R. (2006). 'What am I supposed to do all day?': Three big ideas for the 
reading coach. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 486-488.  

Feger, ST., Woleck, K., & Hickman, P. (2004). How to develop a coaching eye. Journal of Staff 
Development, 25(2).  

Forsyth, P., Adams, C., & Hoy, W. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Can't Improve Without It. New 
York: Teachers College Press. 

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Simon & Schuster. 
Galford, Robert, & Drapeau, Anne Seibold. (2002). The Trusted Leader. New York: The Free Press. 
Gallucci, C. (2008). Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support 

in the context of school district instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 114, 541-
581.  

Gallucci, C., Boatright, E.E., Lysne, D., & Swinnerton, J. (2006). The pedagogy of third-party 
support for instructional improvement: A partnership between CEL and Highline School 
District. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 

Garet, M.S., Birman, B.F., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Herman, R., & Yoon, K.S. (1999). Designing 
effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Washington, 
DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New 
Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. 

Greene, T. (2004). Literature Review for School-Based Staff Developers and Coaches NSDC's 
School-Based Staff Developer Learning Community Coach (pp. 1-17). 

Hartnett-Edwards, K. (2011). Helpgin the Adults Learn. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 60-63.  
Harwell-Kee, K. (1999). Coaching. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 28-29.  



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54  
 

 

18 

Honig, H.I. (2008). District Central Office as Learning Organizations: How Sociocultural and 
Organizational Learning Theories Elaborate District Central Office Administrators' 
Participation in Teaching and Learning Improvements. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 
627-664.  

Howe, A.C., & Stubbs, H.S. (2003). From Science Teacher to Teacher Leader: Leadership 
Development as Meaning Making in a Community of Practice. In D. Trumbull (Ed.), Science 
Teacher Education (Vol. 87, pp. 281-297): Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 

Hoy, W. (1999). Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of 
School Leadership, 9, 184-208.  

Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as Learning: School Reform, Organizational 
Culture, and Community Politics in San Diego: New York: Routledge. 

Ippolito, J.(2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive 
 relationships with teachers. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164-190.  
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-10.  
Kertlow, A., & Bartholomew, C. (2010). Using Coaching to Improve the Fidelity of Evidence-Based 

Practices: A Review of Studies Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 279-299.  
Kesselheim, C. (1998). The assistance relationship between content-specialist science facilitators and their 

constituent teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational 
Research Association, San Diego, CA.  

Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2005). Nine roles of the school-based coach. Teachers Teaching Teachers, 1-
5.  

Kise, J.A.G. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Corwin Press. 

Knapp, M. S., & Feldman, S. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external 
accountability: Challenge for urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of 
Educational Administration, 50(5), 666-694.  

Knapp, M. S., Feldman, S., & Yeh, T.L. (2013). Learning-focused Leadership in Urban High 
Schools: Response to demanding environments. Journal of School Leadership, 23(2), 252-285.  

Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership: Intensive support can 
improve teaching. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 32-37.  

Knight, J. (2005). A primer on instructional coaches. Principal Leadership (Middle Sch Ed), 5(9), 16-21.  
Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36-41.  
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Corwin Press. 
Kochkanek, J.R. (2005) Building trust for Better Schools. thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 
Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Instructional coaching Issue Brief (pp. 1-8): Learning Point Associates 

& The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. 
Mangin, M.M., & Stoelinga, S.R. (2008a). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform. 

New York: Teachers College Press. 
Marsh, J., Sloan-Mccombs, J., & Martorell, F. (2012). Reading Coach Quality: Findings from Florida 

Middle Schools Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 1-26.  
Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H. E., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role 

of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy 
 Analysis, 32(2), 249-272.  
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building School Based Teacher Professional Learning Communities. 

New York: Teachers College Press. 



U nderstanding relationship 

 

19 

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from 
case study research in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003a). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity: 
Promises & practicalities (pp. 46 pp.). Boston: Education Matters, Inc., The Aspen Institute 
Program on Education & The Annenberg Institute for School Reform. 

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003b). How are coaches prepared? In B. Neufeld & D. Roper (Eds.), 
Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. New York: Education Matters, Inc., The 
Annenberg Institute for School Reform and The Annenberg Institute Program on 
Education. 

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003c). Year II of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective 
practice schools: Expanding the work. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters, Inc. 

Neumerski, C. (2013). Rethinking Instructional Leadership, a  Review: What Do We Know About 
Principal Teacher and Coach Instructional Leadership and Where Should We Go From 
Here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.  

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 (pp. 55 pp.). 
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, 
Graduate School of Education. 

Richard, A. (2003). The Emergence Of School-Based Staff Developers 
 In America’s Public Schools. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. 
Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian 

Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.  
Schweiker-Marra, K.E. (1995). Examining the relationship between school culture and teacher change. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton 
Head, SC.  

Sherrill, J. A. (1999). Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century. Theory Into Practice, 
38(1), 56-61.  

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43-48.  
Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in 

organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259.  
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. (2007). Architectures for Learning: A comparative Analysis of Two 

Urban School districts. In M. Knapp (Ed.): Center for Teaching and Policy. 
Steiner, L., & Kowal, J. (2007). Principals as instructional leaders: Designing a coaching program that 

fits Issue Brief: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. 
Swinnerton, J. (2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding 

central office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 195-221.  
Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
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. 18-71). New York: 
Teachers College Press. 

Tschannen-Moran, Megan. (2004). Trust Matters. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
West, L., & Staub, F. (2003). Content focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann. 
Wicker, R.K. (2006). Do science coaches promote inquiry-based instruction in the elementary science classroom?    
 

 



U nderstanding relationship  31 
 

 

About the Authors 

 
Ruth Anderson  
FACET Innovations 
randerson@facetinnovations.com 
Ruth Anderson, Ph.D., is an Education Researcher at FACET Innovations in Seattle, Washington. 
 Her professional experience includes fifteen years of classroom teaching (K-16), curriculum 
development, and program evaluation across academic disciplines. As a program evaluator on 
several large-scale STEM education projects, she has had ongoing interactions with educators and 
students at all levels and the opportunity to study a variety of learning environments, educational 
reform efforts and models of professional development. With a strong background in the 
humanities (languages, literature and linguistics) and more than a dozen years working in science 
education, she brings a unique perspective to her work on STEM projects. Her ongoing research 
interests range from classroom discourse, and diagnostic learning environments to collaborative 
learning and educational partnerships. 
 
Sue Feldman 
Lewis and Clark College 
feldmans@lclark.edu  
Dr. Sue Feldman, is Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Lewis and Clark College, 
Portland Or. Sue combines her background in cognitive psychology and education leadership and 
policy to form an interdisciplinary research agenda exploring the intersection of learning-focused 
leadership, equity policy and organization.  Sue has worked as an education researcher with the 
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at the University of Washington, and as a research 
scientist with FACET Innovations, a learning sciences research group, in Seattle Washington, 
focused on how people learn science.  In addition to ten years of experience working in teacher 
education, Sue brings a wealth of school and district leadership experience to her research including 
ten years working in school improvement administration at the school, district, and regional levels. 
All of her work stems from a deep interest in learning and an abiding commitment to the promise of 
public education to equalize recognition and participation in generating democracy. In addition to 
working on the function of coaching in education, Sue is currently studying how school leaders 
enact locally-situated equity policy.  
 
Jim Minstrell 
FACET Innovations 
jimminstrell@facetinnovations.com 
Jim Minstrell, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Scientist and co-founder of FACET Innovations, a 
Seattle-based research and development company focused on bridging research and classroom 
practice in STEM education. Jim spent 30 years teaching high school mathematics, physics and 
integrated science & mathematics and also maintained a  “parallel career” conducting classroom 
research. An award winning science teacher, Jim is well known in the science education community 
for his research of learners’ conceptual understandings of physics and the development of “Facets of 
student thinking” –a framework for interpreting, assessing and building on learner thinking.  In 
addition to conducting research, Jim works regularly with teachers, and teacher educators across the 
country. 



U nderstanding relationship       21 
 

 

 

About the Guest Editor 

Sarah Woulfin 
University of Connecticut  
Sarah.Woulfin@UConn.edu  
Sarah Woulfin is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Connecticut, 
Storrs. She studies the relationship between education policy, leadership, and instructional reform. 
Using lenses from organizational sociology, she investigates how leaders influence teachers’ 
responses to reform efforts. In her doctoral work at the University of California, Berkeley, she 
focused on institutional theory, policy implementation, and coaching. She has published in the 
American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) and Reading Research Quarterly. Currently, she is 
an associate editor for Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ). She is also on the executive 
steering committee of the Districts in Research and Reform SIG at AERA. From 2009-2012, Dr. 
Woulfin served as the program chair for AERA’s Organizational Theory Special Interest Group. As 
a former urban public school teacher and reading coach, she was dedicated to strengthening 
students’ reading and writing skills to promote educational equity. As a scholar, her commitment to 
raising the quality of instruction motivates her research on how policy influences—and is influenced 
by—administrators and teachers. 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54 22 
 

 

 

SPECIAL ISSUE 
Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring 

Programs 

education policy analysis archives 
Volume 22  Number 54    June 23rd 2014 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is 
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More 
details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the 
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School 
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de 
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO 
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), 
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to 
Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu  
 
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter 
feed @epaa_aape. 

 



U nderstanding relationship       23 
 

 

education policy analysis archives 
editorial board  

Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) 

Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) 
 
Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Gary Anderson New York University  Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison  Samuel R. Lucas  University of California, Berkeley  
Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington  
David C. Berliner  Arizona State University  William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder 
Robert Bickel  Marshall University  Tristan McCowan  Institute of Education, London  
Henry Braun Boston College  Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley  
Eric Camburn  University of Wisconsin, Madison  Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder 
Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss  University of Melbourne  
Casey Cobb  University of Connecticut  Sharon Nichols  University of Texas, San Antonio  
Arnold Danzig  Arizona State University  Noga O'Connor University of Iowa  
Antonia Darder  University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
João Paraskveva  University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth  
Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University  Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University 
John Diamond Harvard University  John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles 
Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates  A. G. Rud Purdue University 
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida  Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University 
Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State 

University  
Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley  

Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University  
Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota  Dorothy Shipps  Baruch College/CUNY  
Gene V Glass  Arizona State University  Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University  
Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz  Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut  
Harvey Goldstein Bristol University  Cally Waite  Social Science Research Council  
Jacob P. K. Gross  Indiana University  John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado 

Springs  
Eric M. Haas  WestEd  Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder 
Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern 

California 
Ed Wiley  University of Colorado, Boulder 

Aimee Howley  Ohio University  Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University  
Craig Howley  Ohio University  John Willinsky  Stanford University  
Steve Klees  University of Maryland  Kyo Yamashiro  University of California, Los Angeles 
Jaekyung Lee  SUNY Buffalo  * Members of the New Scholars Board 

 
 

 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 22 N o. 54 24 
 

 

archivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
consejo editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante  (Universidad de Cantabria) 

 
Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de 

Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Fanni Muñoz  Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú 

Claudio Almonacid  Universidad Metropolitana de 
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile 

Imanol Ordorika   Instituto de Investigaciones 
Economicas – UNAM, México 

Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, 
Venezuela 

Xavier Besalú  Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España   
Jose Joaquin Brunner  Universidad Diego Portales, 

Chile 
Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, 

Argentina 
Damián Canales Sánchez  Instituto Nacional para la 

Evaluación de la Educación, México 
Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia   

María Caridad García  Universidad Católica del Norte, 
Chile 

Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España      

Raimundo Cuesta Fernández  IES Fray Luis de León, 
España 

Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario 
Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá   

Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica 
Nacional, Colombia 

Inés Dussel  FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de 
Colombia   

Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de 
Madrid, España 

Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de 
Tamaulipas, México 

Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, 
México 

Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre 
la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM  México   

Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez 
Autónoma de Tabasco, México 

José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, 
España 

Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, 
España 

Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Edna Luna Serrano  Universidad Autónoma de Baja 
California, México 

Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España 

Alma Maldonado  Departamento de Investigaciones 
Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios 
Avanzados, México 

Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, 
España   

Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de 
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, 
Holanda   

José Felipe Martínez Fernández  University of 
California Los Angeles, USA 

Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación 
Estratégica, Bolivia   

 
 



U nderstanding relationship       25 
 

 

arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
conselho editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin  

(Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) 
 
Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de 

Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta 

Grossa, Brasil 
Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal 

de Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia 

Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil 
Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, 

Portugal 
Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana 

do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil 
Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, 

Brasil 
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de 

Santa Catarina, Brasil 
António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal 

Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de 
Janeiro, Brasil 

Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, 
U.S.A 

Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de 
Pernambuco, Brasil 

Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade 
Federal de São Carlos, Brasil 

Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, 
Brasil 

Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio 
Grande do Sul, Brasil 

Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal 

José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da 
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal 

Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil 

Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade 
Estadual de Campinas, Brasil 

Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 
Brasil