A striking similarity exists between the approach to that of successful teaching and coaching. When I reflect upon the foundation of effective teaching and the desired outcome of instruction, it makes perfect sense that these would align with the efficacy and objectives of coaching or mentoring. As someone who has just begun my adventure in instructional coaching, research about coaching that parallels the experience with teaching renders me more at ease with the transition in mentality.
It is a little intimidating to approach a teacher who has practiced her skill for many years and offer a coaching relationship, even if the area of focus is less familiar to the experienced educator. For the purpose of this coaching assignment, I selected a colleague who was excited about technology use in her classroom, but unsure of some tools and strategies that would facilitate implementation. Although my mentee has years of experience, this is her first year in the high school setting. Because of the change of population, abilities, and expectations, she was a desirable candidate for a coaching relationship as she recognized something missing in her teaching toolbox.
As Marzano & Simms (2013) explain, the receptiveness to coaching differs according to situation. The categorization system proposed by Jackson (2008) offers a visual depiction of the two factors, will and skill, that determine acceptance of a coaching relationship. The colleague who I am currently working with to incorporate more effective use of technology falls within the column that reflects ease of coaching.
My mentee was selected because of her will and skill, although I was not familiar with Jackson’s dichotomy of teacher acceptance of learning. The argument could be made that she falls into both the High Skill/ High Will quadrant and the Low Skill/ High Will sector. In either case, her motivation to improve her teaching practice remains the equally elevated. What causes difficulty in classification is her skill. She is aware of the area that needs improvement, but not the specific tools or strategies to improve within the determined area.
It proves interesting to compare Jackson’s skill and will classification with Johari’s Window Model to reach conclusions about the self-awareness and receptiveness of any mentee.
 |
| (Self Awareness, 2013) |
In the case of Johari’s Window, the participant in my coaching would conform to the parameters of the “open area or arena”, corresponding to the previous classification that includes high will and easy acceptance. Although the systems differ in objective, using both to evaluate my mentee’s interest in coaching certainly demonstrates her openness to changes in the classroom.
The readiness and awareness of my willing co-participant in the coaching relationship promise success of the endeavor. The opportunity for growth for both participants involved in the coaching experience invoke optimism. I hope to exhibit the positive coaching behaviors that Marzano & Simms (2013) detail, those of modeling, feedback, and trust. These behaviors are not only integral to instructional coaching, but to the traditional classroom setting as well. My experience in the classroom will serve as the base for my coaching practice and will hope to positively affect the teaching practice of an appreciated colleague.
Emphasizing the importance of trust in the coaching relationship, this list of tips to enhance growth lists it as the number one factor:
Jackson, R. (2008). The instructional leader’s guide to strategic conversations with teachers. Washington, DC: Mindsteps.
Marzano, R. & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington: Marzano Research Laboratory.
Self Awareness. (2013). Self Awareness. [online] Available at: http://www.selfawareness.org.uk/news/understanding-the-johari-window-model [Accessed 12 Nov. 2017].
Comments
Post a Comment