ABSTRACT Takicey Michelle Dunston, PERCEPTION IS REALITY: THE PERCEIVED IMPACT OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING ON TEACHER EFFICACY (Under the direction of Dr. Heidi Puckett). Department of Educational Leadership, May, 2024. This study examines how teachers at an elementary school perceive the impact of instructional coaching on their instructional efficacy. It provides a detailed examination of how coaching interventions affect teachers' attitudes regarding their teaching and classroom management abilities. Teachers involved in the study completed a pre-survey, post-survey, and participated in a semi-structured interview to assess teacher efficacy as a part of the qualitative analysis. Analysis of the research gathered suggests that teachers perceive instructional coaching as having a positive impact on their teacher efficacy, especially regarding student engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies. Teachers reported having more confidence in their decision-making and more resilience when encountering problems in the classroom as a result of instructional coaching. The perception of teachers in the study emphasizes the significance of personalized, trustworthy coaching relationships and the impact of reflective practice on enhancing their pedagogical skills. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by presenting real-world evidence related to the impact of instructional coaching on improving teacher efficacy. This provides valuable advice to educational leaders on developing and implementing coaching programs that enhance teacher development and, in turn, improve student learning outcomes. PERCEPTION IS REALITY: THE PERCEIVED IMPACT OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING ON TEACHER EFFICACY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership By Takicey Michelle Dunston May, 2024 Director of Dissertation: Heidi Puckett, EdD Dissertation Committee Members: Travis Lewis, EdD Marjorie Ringler, EdD Nicholas King, PhD ©Copyright 2024 Takicey Michelle Dunston DEDICATION I give God all the glory and praise for blessing and never leaving me throughout my life and this process. To my husband, Greg, for loving me and encouraging me to persevere throughout my dissertation journey and life’s many challenges. I love you more than words can express. To my mother Yvonne, and grandmother, Retha, for being phenomenal women in my life and insisting that I too am a phenomenal woman. It is because of you that I am who I am today, and I am forever grateful. To my daughter, Tasha, and son, Rishon, for always believing in me and supporting me in all my endeavors. I love you! To my sister, Felicia, and brother, Marshannon Sr., for being there to cheer me on to the finish line. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the best instructional coaches, Erin Ennis, Stephanie Wood, and Dr. Tanya Wynn, for everything that you did to support me throughout this process. I am grateful for the teachers who participated in this study. Thank you to my cousin, Jennifer, for always cheering me on and reminding me to celebrate small and big accomplishments. Thank you to my cousin, Pheon, for pushing me when I thought I could not go any further. I’m grateful to my entire family for loving and supporting me no matter what I aspire to accomplish. Thank you to Dr. Puckett for chairing me, mentoring, and encouraging me on my writing journey. I am extremely grateful for all of your support throughout my cancer journey. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE………………………………....……………………………………………… i COPYRIGHT…………………………....……………………….…………………… ii DEDICATION……………………………....…………………….….………………. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………....……………….….…………………. iv LIST OF TABLES………………………………....…………….…………………… xi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………....…….…….…………………. xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………....…………….……………. 1 Background of the Problem…………………………..................……………... 4 Context of the Study……………………………………………....…………… 7 Statement of the Problem of Practice………………….…….…….......………. 9 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………....…… 11 Research Questions………………………………………………………...…... 12 Overview of the Inquiry……………………………………………………...… 12 Collaborative Inquiry Partners…………………………….....………………… 13 Conceptual Framework…………………………………….…..………………. 14 Theoretical Framework……………………….………………………………... 16 Definition of Key Terms…………………………………..….….…………….. 17 Assumptions………………………………………………...……....….…..…... 18 Scope and Delimitations……………………………………...…….………….. 20 Limitations…………………………….…………………………………….…. 21 Significance of the Study…………..……………………………...………...…. 23 Advancing Equity and Social Justice……………………………………. 24 Advances in Practice…………………...……………...……....………… 25 Summary…………………...…………………...…………………........……… 26 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………….…..….….… 28 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………..……..…… 30 Instructional Coaching….….….….….….….………….….….….….…... 31 Impact Cycle …………….….….….….….….………..…..….…...….…. 33 Instructional Modeling….….….….….….….………….….….…... 34 Co-teaching….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….… 34 Identify………………………...………………………………….. 35 Learn…………………….............………………………….......… 35 Improve…………………………………………………………… 37 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………........ 38 Institutional and Educational Reforms…………………….....…..……………. 39 Professional Development……………………...………...…….......…...……... 41 Instructional Coaching………………………….….….….….…...….………… 45 Instructional Coaching Impact…………………….…...….…...…...….... 47 Coaching Behaviors……………………………………………………... 49 Facilitative Coaching………………………………..........………. 49 Directive Coaching…………………….……………....…………. 50 Peer Coaching…………………………...….….….….….…...…... 51 Cognitive Coaching……………………….….….….….….….….. 51 Transformational Coaching………………….….…....…….……... 53 Relationship Building and Collaboration…………………………...…………. 53 Measuring Effectiveness…………………………….……....…….…………… 55 Summary……………………………………………………………………….. 58 CHAPTER 3: METHODS OF INQUIRY ……………………......………….……… 60 Research Questions…………….………….………….………………………... 61 Inquiry Design and Rationale….………………………………………………. 65 Context of the Study………....………………………………………………… 66 Collaborative Inquiry Partners…………....……………………………………. 68 Ethical Considerations…...………….…………………………………………. 70 Inquiry Procedures……………………………………………….…………...... 72 Phase 1……………………...………………….………………………... 74 Phase 2……………………………….……….…………………………. 75 Participants and Recruitment Strategies…..........……………….... 75 Instrumentation ………………...….….….…….…….……..……. 76 Procedures ………………………………………………………... 76 Data Analysis………………………………….….….….….….…. 77 Summary of Phase 2 …….…………………………….…...….…. 77 Phase 3………………………………………………….……………….. 78 Participants and Recruitment Strategies …………….….……..…. 78 Instrumentation…………….……………….…………….………. 78 Data Collection……………………………………………..….…. 79 Data Analysis………………………….............…….……………. 80 Summary of Phase 3……............……………….………………... 80 Phase 4………………………………………............…………………... 81 Participants and Recruitment Strategies…………..........………… 81 Instrumentation……………….............………………..…………. 81 Data Collection…………………............…………...……………. 82 Data Analysis…………………………….......………...….……… 83 Summary of Phase 4………............…………………………….... 83 Inquiry Design Rigor………………...………….........………...………...……. 84 Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions....………………....….….……… 85 Role of the Scholarly Practitioner……….….………………………………….. 86 Summary………………………………………………………………….….… 87 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS …………………………………………………….………. 89 Participants’ Demographics………………………….……………………...…. 91 Lindsey….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….… 91 Kenzie….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…. 91 Allison….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…. 93 Jennifer….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….… 93 Akeia….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…... 93 Jenne….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…... 93 Tanesha….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….… 93 Heather….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….…………..... 93 Lenna….….….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…... 93 Implementation……………………………………………………………….... 93 Phase 1……………………………………………………………...…… 94 Domain for Instructional Coaching……………………………………... 95 Phase 2…………………………………………………………………... 97 Phase 3…………………………….…………………………………….. 97 Phase 4……………………………………………………………….….. 98 Data Collection…………………………………….………….…………….…. 98 Pre-Survey...……………………………………...……………………… 98 Post-Survey…...………………………………………….…………….... 99 Semi-Structured Interviews……….…………………………………..… 99 Heather….….….….….….….……....….….….….….………….… 99 Tanesha...….….….….….….………….…..….….….………….…. 99 Lindsey....….….….….….…...….….….….….….….………….…. 100 Jennifer….….….….….….….…........….….….….….………….… 100 Jenne….….….….….………….….….….….….….………….…... 100 Lenna….….….….….….….……....….….….….….………….…... 101 Kenzie…..….….….….….….…...….….….….….….………….… 101 Akeia…....….….….….….….………….….….….….…………..... 101 Data Analysis…………………………………………...……………………… 102 Pre- and Post-Survey Data Analysis…………………………………….. 102 Semi-structured Interview Data Analysis……………………………….. 103 Codes and Themes…………………………………………...………….. 103 Theme #1…………………………………………...……………... 105 Theme #2…………………………………………...……………... 105 Theme #3…………………………………………...……………... 105 Theme #4…………………………………………...……………... 108 Results…………………………………….….....…….……..……....………..... 108 Analysis of Research Question 1………………………………………... 109 Analysis of Research Question 2………………………………………... 111 Analysis of Research Question 3………………………………………... 112 Analysis of Research Question 4………………………………………... 114 Summary………………………………………………….……………....……. 117 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......... 119 Summary of Findings………………….………...……………..…….………… 120 Interpretation of Findings…………...………………....………………………. 121 Research Question 1…………...…………………....………….……….. 121 Research Question 2…………….…….………...…………….………… 123 Research Question 3 ……………….......…………………………….…. 124 Research Question 4…….…………...…………....………………….…. 125 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks…...…………....……………………. 126 Limitations of the Study…….…………...…………....…..….….….…………. 130 Implications of the Findings for Practice….…….………….….….….………... 132 Implications of the Findings for Social Justice, Diversity, Access, and Equity... 136 Recommendations for Future Study…………….……….………………….…. 137 Implications on Role as Scholarly Practitioner………….....………….….…… 138 Conclusions…………………....……………………………….….…...……… 139 REFERENCES…….….………………….…………………….…..….….….….….... 140 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL……………...… 154 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM……………………………………. 158 APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT REQUEST LETTER………………………..……… 161 APPENDIX D: PRE-SURVEY……….………………………….….….………..…... 162 APPENDIX E: POST-SURVEY……….……………………………………………... 163 APPENDIX F: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL………..……….. 164 LIST OF TABLES 1. Top-Down Approach vs. Partnership Model……………………………………….. 56 2. Research Questions and Corresponding Data Sources….………….……………… 63 3. Study Phases, Timeline, and Tasks………………………………….….…………... 73 4. Teacher Participant Demographics………………………….…………………….... 92 5. Individual Instructional Coaching Domain……………………………….….…….. 96 6. Initial Word List and Supplemental Codes………………………….….………….. 104 7. Research Questions Codes and Themes…………………………...….….………… 107 LIST OF FIGURES 1. The Impact Cycle………………………...……………………………..………….. 36 2. Instructional coaches’ roles and responsibilities…….……………………..….…… 106 2 2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Teachers frequently face the challenge of adapting to the diverse learning requirements of their students, especially in regard to the regulations by federal and state legislators. Acknowledging the constraints of conventional didactic, workshop-oriented professional development (PD), many scholars, professionals, and policymakers have adopted instructional coaching as an alternative approach (Desimone & Garet, 2015). This method entails providing targeted guidance, conducting observations, and offering feedback to implement newly acquired practices and procedures in classroom environments successfully (Joyce & Showers, 1982; Showers et al., 1987). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2000 emphasized the need to possess high qualifications and use scientifically proven practices, which has led to an escalated requirement for providing ongoing coaching to teachers. Instructional coaching has gained endorsement among policymakers to improve pedagogy relative to ESEA. This approach involves site-based, individualized, and sustained professional development (Bean et al., 2010; Deussen et al., 2007). The implementation of instructional coaches has been observed as supporting teachers in the execution of response-to-intervention models. These models are structured as a tiered support system for students with special needs as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004. In response to that policy initiative, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have established opportunities that facilitate teacher support via customized professional development programs. Meeting students’ diverse needs, implementing new curricula, maintaining classroom discipline, achieving grade-level mastery for all learners, and pursuing professional development can be an overwhelming responsibility for teachers. Upon the introduction of new initiatives, it is customary for teachers to participate in a designated number of instructional hours aimed at facilitating the integration, execution, and evaluation of the efficacy of the novel adoption. Instructional coaching can be considered as one of the PD initiatives teachers are faced with utilizing and it is important to ensure that teachers are willing to fully participate in this opportunity. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of instructional coaching at an elementary school based on the perceptions of teachers receiving coaching support. The significance of this research lies in the opportunity to examine the influence of instructional coaching on teacher efficacy. This study explored the advantages of offering teachers continuous professional development, facilitated by instructional coaches, customized to enhance the teachers’ instructional requirements. Instructional coaches encounter the task of guiding teachers to enhance their pedagogical approaches and instructional efficacy and the successful completion of this task necessitates that coaches possess expertise in the domains identified by Kowal and Steiner (2007), including pedagogy, curriculum, and interpersonal aptitude. Implementing innovative programs may prompt school districts and administrators to seek a strategy to adhere to local and federal mandates. Neufeld and Roper (2003) have proposed the integration of coaches as a crucial component of school-based professional development that is tailored to meet the specific instructional needs of schools and aligned with the district’s reform agenda as a means of fulfilling these requirements. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 has accelerated the need for school leaders to respond to the requirements of accountability, intricate standards, and high-stakes testing. As a result, instructional coaching has emerged as a highly valuable resource for school systems. Instructional coaches are responsible for implementing research-based practices in classrooms when working with adult learners, as opposed to students. This duty was informed by a range of research methods (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). Instructional coaching that is effective offered teachers customized real-time instructional assistance to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. According to Kowal and Steiner (2007), instructional coaches allocate a considerable portion of their time engaging in classroom modeling, providing constructive feedback, and conducting targeted assessments of individual teaching methodologies. In addition, they also may spend a significant amount of time collaborating with cohorts of teachers and fulfilling supplementary managerial responsibilities. Their goal focuses on accelerating teacher effectiveness, improving teacher retention, developing teacher leadership, increasing student learning, and supporting equitable outcomes for all learners (New Teacher Center, 2018, p. 1). Teachers who establish and uphold well-organized learning environments and implement effective instructional methodologies are deemed capable of providing mentorship to novice teachers (those in their initial three years of teaching) and disseminating their exemplary practices to all teachers. The provision of targeted professional development to instructional coaches, coupled with their confidence in their abilities, can yield positive outcomes for principals, teachers, and students (Anderson & Wallin, 2018). According to the Center for Comprehensive Reform and Improvement, effective coaches possess three major skill sets: pedagogical knowledge, content competence, and interpersonal skills (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). These skills are evident when coaches collaborate with teachers to address instructional practices. It is important to understand the identified qualities and how they manifest in practice as related to this study (Knight, 2017; Kowal & Steiner, 2007). The first quality that an instructional coach (IC) should possess is the capacity to effectively use questioning and classroom management strategies, as well as an understanding and experiential foundation of how students learn, to make up pedagogical knowledge (Knight, 2017). The second quality of a successful IC includes a solid knowledge of the subject matter and the curriculum being employed, as well as the capacity to use data and differentiated instruction to drive learning, which are all components of content expertise (Knight, 2017). Finally, instructional coaches should possess the ability to demonstrate interpersonal capabilities that reflect the ability to build trust and to encourage and inspire teachers to improve their practices, leading change in an organized, assertive, positive manner (Knight, 2017). The ability to form interpersonal relationships is an essential key component of coaching others on any level. Background of the Problem Over the past several decades, the demands for improving student academic achievement led to an increased importance in teachers sharing and emulating best practices to improve instruction. Congress and the U.S. Department of Education promoted ESSA as a law that demonstrates a commitment to educational equity (Saultz et al., 2017). The law shifts the focus of teacher policy from ensuring that teachers meet minimum qualifications, as was the case under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), to the distribution of highly effective teachers (Kurtz et al., 2020; Saultz et al., 2017). In this regard ESSA shifted from a federal emphasis on “unqualified” teachers to “ineffective” teachers, which represents a significant shift from teacher inputs (quality) to student outcomes (effectiveness; Desimone & Pak, 2017; Saultz et al., 2017). Federal and local agencies are encouraged to identify, train, and compensate coaches to assist teachers with developing assessments, interpreting student data, designing and differentiating instruction, providing feedback, and evaluating performance in 11 instances throughout the bill (Desimone & Pak, 2017; Kurtz et al., 2020). Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers have embraced the use of instructional coaching, while recognizing the limitations of traditional PD for teachers (Desimone & Garet, 2015). Consequently, school and district leaders are rapidly expanding the number of teachers assuming a variety of coaching positions (Deussen et al., 2007). Other fields, specifically business and sports, have always utilized coaching as the universal practice for enhancing the professional performance of individuals and the effectiveness of their organizations (Rangeon et al., 2012). There is a growing body of evidence that suggests instructional coaching models are effective in providing support to teachers within educational settings; yet, further research, specifically at individual schools, can examine distinct impacts of coaching actions on specific instructional approaches, as well as the perceptions of those being coached related to effectiveness. Guidance, observations, and feedback facilitate the transfer of newly acquired practices and procedures into classroom settings (Joyce & Showers, 1982; Showers et al., 1987). In response, numerous coaching models have been developed to support the implementation of evidence-based practices, including those with evidence of efficacy/effectiveness from well-designed research studies for improving teacher/student outcomes across multiple domains (Cook et al., 2011; Kurtz et al., 2017). This study was focused on instructional coaching as a method to optimize the collaboration between instructional coaches and teachers in an effort to enhance teacher efficacy at Best Elementary School (BES) in Fantastic County Public Schools (FCPS). Instructional coaches in the school district, and more specifically at BES, have evolved from their initial implementation in 2002 to the present. Initially instructional coaches were first identified as program specialists and assigned the task of supporting teachers throughout the district with creating and implementing lessons according to the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCS). This title identification continued to change from curriculum and instructional coaches, teaching and learning coaches (TLC), to most recently, effective learning facilitators (ELF). Although the title has changed over the past two decades, the purpose of instructional coaching remains the same; however, effectiveness may have varied across schools in FCPS. Even though all schools in the district receive instructional coaching support, low-performing schools continue to be identified based on student performance which displays their high need for instructional support. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the year 2015 – 2016, 54,800 traditional public schools had staff with specialist or coaching assignments. In FCPS instructional coaches have previously worked as teachers or administrators and have exhibited successful instructional techniques that have led to notable student progress and success. The implementation of coaching as a means of professional development to enhance instructional practices has increased. This is due to research findings that improving teachers’ classroom practices can significantly improve student learning (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). The multifaceted role of the IC involves supporting the development of optimal teaching practices through self-evaluation, reflection, and strategy revision. Instructional coaches possess specialized knowledge in a particular subject area or a broad understanding of multiple subjects. Specific coaches possess expertise in assisting teachers in identifying evidence-based intervention tactics for students who exhibit abilities below their expected grade level. These coaches serve as Multi-Tier System Support (MTSS) providers (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). BES is equipped with a team of coaches specializing in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and MTSS. The coaches are sustained through the allocation of Title I Funds and are present daily to support teachers based on their individual areas of instructional need. Context of the Study The study was conducted at Best Elementary School (BES) in North Carolina, specifically in the small town of Best, which is located on the southern border of Fantastic County. The community surrounding BES holds the school in high regard and the school receives substantial funding from the district. Numerous residents of the neighborhood completed their education at the same institutions where their children are presently enrolled, including BES. In 1920, the one-room school opened in downtown Best, North Carolina. The current location of BES was built in 1991 and remains close to the local businesses in downtown Best. BES currently serves preschool through fourth-grade students; but, as a result of the growing population, a bond referendum was passed in 2021 in order to expand the current school infrastructure. This would allow for the accommodation of the increasing number of students, as well as adding fifth grade into the elementary school. Although BES is situated within a supportive community, it is a Title 1 school where 73% of students receive free or reduced-price lunches. The student body at BES is divided into five ethnic groups: White students, who constitute the majority, followed by Hispanic, Black, Multiracial, and Native American students. The teaching staff comprises 10 novice teachers, 42 veteran teachers, and three ICs. There are also 18 instructional assistants, commonly referred to as “teachers’ aides.” Each IC assists in their respective area of expertise. A specialized instructional coach is available to assist kindergarten through fourth-grade English Language Arts (ELA) teachers. The math coach provides pedagogical assistance to kindergarten through fourth-grade teachers of mathematics. In response to changes made by the state to the intervention process for students who may require specialized instruction, the school has designated a multi-tier instructional coach to assist teachers in developing intervention plans, determining intervention strategies, consulting with parents, and determining whether the student should be referred to the Exceptional Children’s Department (EC). In 2017, BES was classified as a low-performing school and designated as a Restart School due to students’ low performance on the state-administered end-of-grade examination. The Strategic Reform Team within the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) and Regional Support within the Division of District and School Support Services support Restart schools. The District and Regional Support Services collaborate with school districts and schools to ensure that all students have equal access to a meaningful and sound basic education. Restart permits districts and schools to investigate equitable opportunities for the students they serve outside the North Carolina-mandated educational boundaries (NCDPI, 2023). Restart Reform’s mission is: ... to support and encourage Restart Leaders in the school improvement process and the use of Restart flexibility to remove barriers to academic achievement. Through continuous improvement and innovative practices, districts and schools work collaboratively to use the Restart Model to provide equitable access to a meaningful, sound, basic education for every student. (NCDPI, 2023) In 2022, according to the NCDPI, a school with a School Performance grade "D or F" for two or three consecutive years and a growth status of "Met or Not Met" is deemed low performing. In the years following its designation as a low-performing school, BES has demonstrated remarkable academic growth and increased proficiency levels. This necessitates a comprehensive review of the School Improvement Plan (SIP) to re-evaluate the designated strategies to ensure that students meet the school, district, and state growth expectations. To ensure that instructional strategies effectively support student development and achievement, NCDPI mandates that schools develop a comprehensive plan that must be monitored and revised at least twice monthly. Based on research and prior experience, the ultimate purpose of providing ICs to assist teachers with their pedagogical needs is to increase their efficacy and the academic outcomes of students. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to employ qualitative data collection and analysis to determine if the intentionally planned provision of instructional mentoring support resulted in an increase in instructional effectiveness based on the perceptions of teachers and the academic performance of students on the district’s benchmark assessments, school-based and progress monitors. Statement of the Problem of Practice Most districts currently use coaching to build capacity to support instructional change at the individual and systemic levels (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). However, it is frequently observed that coaching needs to be more closely integrated with the established systems of districts and schools, leading to its potential for enhancing instructional improvement not being fully utilized (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Equipped with specific expertise in instruction and content, coaches possess the capacity to undertake the substantial task of facilitating educational transformation (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). The effectiveness of following the prescribed strategies provided by the IC was not always known. Even when the instructional strategy was implemented with fidelity, the effectiveness of the strategy based on various factors, including but not limited to student achievement, teacher efficacy, and school transformation, may not be determined from the data available. This study gathered teachers’ perspectives on the success of the instructional coaches’ recommended strategies for modifying how instruction is delivered. Understanding the potential impact of the instructional coach-teacher relationship on the coaching process is crucial in establishing a productive collaborative dynamic. This study was essential in addressing how to optimize instructional coaches to impact the effectiveness of teachers’ instructional delivery. According to Kraft et al. (2018), scholarly investigations have demonstrated that individualized coaching is advantageous in enhancing the instructional practices of teachers. Furthermore, the enhancement of instructional practices has been linked to an improvement in academic achievement and student performance (Kraft et al., 2018). Instructional coaching offers teachers techniques and materials that can be utilized to enhance their pedagogical approach. Even though different coaching models establish distinct expectations and parameters for teacher and coach roles, the teacher–coach relationship necessitates that coaches possess expertise relative to the practitioners with whom they work (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). The effectiveness of instructional coaching is influenced by various factors related to its implementation, such as the efficacy of specific models and competencies, as well as the coaches’ adequate professional growth and ongoing assistance (Atteberry & Bryk, 2011; Biancarosa et al., 2010; Knight, 2009b). The purpose of this research was to evaluate the current instructional coaching model at BES to better understand the impact of coaching on the participating teachers. Based on the results of the data collection and analysis, it was possible to identify techniques that have played a role in optimizing the approaches for utilizing the proficiency of coaches based on the teachers’ experiences working with instructional coaches at BES. Purpose of the Study One of the strengths of instructional coaching is that it reflects foundational ideas about what makes teaching and learning effective (Desimone & Pak, 2017). This research was to determine teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the instructional coaching they receive to improve instructional delivery. The intention was that the addition of ICs to the PD opportunities at BES would provide teachers another way to gain strategies and techniques that can impact their teaching efficacy and ultimately result in continued improvement in student achievement. Curricula coaching entails a coach directing their attention toward the fundamental principles of an instructional program, to facilitate teachers’ active involvement in receiving concentrated guidance on the desired content and pedagogical approaches for effective instruction (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). From the completion of this study, the methodologies and strategies implemented to support instructional delivery were discussed to determine teachers’ perceptions of coaching impact and effectiveness. Instructional coaches were physically present at the school site and engaged in the development of teachers. They served as valuable resources for teachers, providing support and guidance in implementing evidence-based teaching practices. Their primary objective was to empower teachers through collaborative partnerships, to integrate instructional methods that are grounded in research into classroom practices (Knight, 2007). This research solicited the perception of teachers on the impact of coaching on their instructional practices. The primary objective of these initiatives was to enhance the learning process and minimize disparities in academic performance among students by enhancing teachers’ pedagogical skills and abilities (Casey, 2006). Through professional and personal relationship building, coaches increased their awareness and understanding of the pedagogical challenges that teachers face with the delivery of instructional practices. A cooperative alliance was established between coaches and teachers to facilitate a constructive exchange focused on identifying customized strategies to meet the specific needs of teachers. Coaches became better at assisting instructors in enhancing the effectiveness of the lessons they teach. Upon concluding this study, BES administration gathered insights into teachers' perceptions of instructional coaching and its influence on teaching efficacy. This effort sought to verify that resources were correctly distributed and employed. Furthermore, examining the data from this research guided future decisions about instructional coaching and comparable initiatives. Research Questions The following research questions will guide the study in regard to the impact of instructional coaching on teachers at BES: 1. How do teachers perceive the role and responsibilities of instructional coaching? 2. What are teachers’ perceptions of an IC’s ability to evaluate and prescribe effective instructional practices and strategies? 3. How do teachers perceive the impact of building relationships on the coaching process? 4. How do teachers measure the effectiveness of instructional coaching? Overview of the Inquiry The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine the impact of instructional coaching on teacher effectiveness based on the teacher’s perception of their experience with the coaching process. The study was conducted in four phases and data was collected via pre- and post-surveys and semi-structured interviews. Upon completion of the study, the results were shared with other administrators and district-level leaders. In Phase 1 initial meetings were held with the ICs/collaborative inquiry partners to share details of the study. At this meeting, the ICs were asked to participate in the study. Additionally, they applied their understanding of instructional coaching and the BES setting to help design the pre-survey that was be distributed to participants. The pre-survey established a baseline prior to the implementation of the instructional coaching process. Phase 2 included sharing details of the study with the individuals selected to participate and sending them the pre-survey electronically. The results were analyzed and reviewed with the instructional coaches regarding the next steps in the process. Phase 2 also included the implementation of the standard instructional coaching process that typically takes place during a 9-week period during the school year at BES. Following completion of the coaching session, participants completed the post-survey and the results were reviewed and shared with the ICs. At this time the interview questions were created based on the results of the pre- and post-survey findings. Finally, Phase 4 included conducting semi-structured interviews with the participants to gather additional qualitative data that can provide richer, deeper information on the perceptions of the teachers that may not have been collected via the surveys. The information from the interviews was analyzed, triangulated with the results of the survey data collection, and shared with the ICs. At this point, the results were also shared with district-level administrators as applicable. Collaborative Inquiry Partners This research benefited significantly from the collaborative efforts with inquiry partners, especially the ICs at BES. There are currently three instructional coaches providing instructional assistance, one in each of the following subjects: English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and Multi-Tier System Support. The selected ICs are chosen for their considerable teaching experience and their expertise in curriculum and instruction within their specific areas. Throughout the study, these coaches were involved in multiple capacities to guarantee that the data collected and analyzed effectively addresses the established research questions. The study's outcomes gave advantageous for them, as the gathered data might offer insights into teachers' views on instructional coaching at BES, enabling them to reassess their interactions with teachers. In this study, the term “collaborative inquiry partners” is used interchangeably with “instructional coaches,” as the three ICs are collaborated in the effort to conduct the study and collect the data. The inquiry partners were first introduced to the study and their responsibilities during a Professional Learning Community (PLC) meeting, which they attend regularly. In this initial gathering, they helped formulate questions for a pre-survey, that were completed by teachers before the instructional coaching cycle commenced. The drafted questions were examined in the survey to confirm that it encompassed all the topics they had discussed. Once the results of the survey were received and reviewed, the coaches were able to alter their coaching methods as they deemed appropriate. When the coaching cycle was concluded and the post-surveys were completed, the results were shared with the coaches so they could assist in creating questions for the semi-structured interview protocol. They were asked again to vet the questions to ensure all relevant information was being collected. The final study results were shared with the coaches so that they could consider all the data that was collected and have a better understanding of the teachers’ perception of instructional coaching, the importance of relationship-building, and their role in the coaching process. Conceptual Framework Instructional coaching has emerged as an immediate answer to the elevated expectations imposed on teachers to enhance students’ academic achievements and competencies. According to Domina et al. (2015), empirical evidence indicates a notable rise in the utilization of instructional coaching during the era of standards-based reform, with the number of coaches employed doubling over the past 15 years. Instructional coaches are tasked with undertaking diverse roles to aid teachers in fulfilling the requirements of education policymakers at both the federal and state levels. The instructional coaching theory of action offers a straight path for district and school leaders to follow. According to Boatright et al. (2012), instructional coaching is a professional development method centered on content and aims to assist teachers in achieving the objectives of instructional reform at the school or district level. This approach involves immersive and contextualized work encompassing classroom observations, demonstrations of exemplary practices, and iterative cycles involving pre- and post-conferences with practitioners (Boatright et al., 2012). Implementing instructional coaching typically requires a delicate equilibrium between providing guidance to individual teachers and participating in comprehensive school-wide and system-wide enhancements (Cornett & Knight, 2008). The IC is responsible for offering mentoring and instructional guidance to teachers while utilizing diverse approaches to cater to distinct instructional requirements. Instructional coaches must possess the ability to discern that teachers have varying needs, and they should keep the necessary resources and competencies to assess the extent of assistance that each teacher needs (Anderson & Wallin, 2018). This particular study directly focused on instructional coaching, so it was important to investigate instructional coaching as the overarching conceptual framework. The purpose of the study was to better understand teachers’ perceptions of instructional coaching to ensure that the coaching being offered is effective. The goal was to optimize the role of ICs in assisting teachers to achieve their predetermined objectives and aspirations to enhance teacher efficacy. In addition, the framework provided information that assisted ICs’ capacity to diagnose, offer constructive feedback, and recommend optimal practices leading to an increase in teacher effectiveness. Instructional coaching, as the conceptual framework that underlies this study, is discussed at length in Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework This study was qualitative in nature and necessitated the accumulation and analysis of substantial qualitative data to explore the focus of instructional coaching, teacher perception, and additionally, teacher efficacy, the theory framing the study. The collection of qualitative data from teachers at BES led to an increase in teacher efficacy by optimizing the partnership between ICs and teachers. Teacher efficacy has long been identified as being systematically associated with student achievement (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1997) described self-efficacy or efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to produce a given attainment (p. 3). The coaching process at BES consists of building relationships, identifying the instructional challenge, developing an instructional plan, and implementing the plan until the desired results have been achieved. The theoretical framework of this study that was implemented reflected Jim Knight’s Impact Cycle which focuses on the IC’s ability to support the instructional needs of teachers by using a triangle approach that includes the coach's ability to assist teachers to (1) Identify, (2) Learn, and (3) Improve their instructional practices (Knight, 2017). This cycle allowed ICs to collaborate with teachers to learn more about the unique area of instruction they find to be challenging, identify goals, choose instructional strategies to meet the identified goals, continuously monitor the progress, and problem solve until the goals have been met (Knight, 2017). Teacher efficacy is thought to be context-specific, wherein teachers may be efficacious when teaching particular subjects to specific students in identified settings; while their level of efficacy may change if teaching another subject to a different group of students (Goddard et al., 2000). The specific level of efficacy and teachers’ beliefs in their ability to perform tasks related to teaching initially were identified as being related to student achievement, student motivation, teacher valuing of educational innovations, and classroom management skills (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). As a result, teacher self-efficacy served as an important aspect of this study and is discussed further in Chapter 2. Definition of Key Terms Definitions are provided for the following key terms to ensure clarity and understanding throughout the study. Achievement gap – Achievement gaps occur when one group of students (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) outperforms another group and the difference in average scores for the two groups is statistically significant (i.e., larger than the margin of error; Hung et al., 2020). Content expertise – Describes a thorough understanding of the subject area and the curriculum being used, as well as the ability to use data and differentiated instruction to drive learning (Knight, 2017). Every Child Succeeds Act of 2015 – The purpose of this act was to provide all children with significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps (Saultz et al., 2017). Highly qualified teacher (HQT) – Federal law defines a “highly qualified teacher” as one who meets three criteria: (1) holds at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year institution; (2) holds full state teaching certification; and (3) demonstrates competence in each core academic subject in which they teach. These HQT requirements apply to every teacher who provides direct instruction in core content areas, including elementary certified teachers working at the middle level, special, alternative teachers, and teachers of English as a second language (Saultz et al., 2017). Instructional coach – An instructional coach is an educational leader who works in a school or district to support teachers in reaching their goals (Knight, 2018). Instructional coaching – Instructional coaches' partner with teachers to analyze current reality, set goals, identify and explain teaching strategies to meet goals, and provide support until the goals are met (Knight, 2018). Interpersonal capabilities – The ability to build trust and to encourage and inspire teachers to improve their practices, leading change in an organized, assertive, positive manner (Knight, 2017). Pedagogical knowledge – An understanding and experiential base of how students learn coupled with an ability to effectively use questioning and classroom management techniques (Knight, 2017). Standards-based performance – Refers to the practice of making sure students learn what they were taught and achieve the expected standards (Link & Guskey, 2022). Assumptions In conducting this study there are some assumptions that needed to be considered. It is assumed that based on the increase in academic performance at BES as seen on the state grading system, instructional coaching has been a successful part of these results. Additionally, it is also assumed that the teachers at BES have previously had, at minimum, a relationship with the ICs that has resulted in some benefit. This study aimed to more accurately determine the role that ICs played in the increase in academic achievement, as well as the relationships that may be created with the teachers. It was assumed that the results of the study would allow for the evaluation of the ICs’ involvement and provide information as to the appropriate use of expenditures regarding curriculum and instruction support. As described the study assumed that teachers and coaches would establish a rapport that facilitates collaboration and dialogue regarding the current level of performance and the identification of areas that require improvement through goal setting. Teachers effectively communicated their requirements and high-need areas to the IC with whom they collaborated to obtain the necessary feedback to cater to their needs. The present study presumed that teachers and coaches would exhibit professional, judicious, and ethical conduct as sincere participants in addressing the identified problem of practice. There was also an assumption that all participants, including collaborative inquiry partners, would recognize the importance of the study and how the information from the study benefits the students at BES while improving teachers’ pedagogical skills and strategies. This recognition allows for the collection and analysis of valid data leading to relevant results that can be shared within BES and with the larger educational community. As the principal at BES, I serve as the supervisor for both the participants and the inquiry partners, and it was appropriate to assume that those involved in the study may be hesitant to participate. It was important to validate any concerns and ensure that the participants understood the ethical considerations that have been considered regarding the study. I also provided details as to how the results can benefit the students, teachers, and other staff at BES so that participants would understand the purpose. Participants were assured that their participation was voluntary, and that their participation or lack thereof would have no bearing on their status or performance evaluation. This study provided valuable insight into the improvement of student performance at BES, the role of the IC in this process, and the appropriate use of resources related to instructional support. Scope and Delimitations The purpose of this study was to gain information about the role played by ICs based on teacher perception at BES. Data collection and analysis were specifically focused on coaches and teachers at BES, and only the teachers who have provided their informed consent to participate before the start of the study. It was important to work closely with the ICs who were serving as inquiry partners as they worked directly with the teachers during the 9-week instructional coaching session. At BES there are currently three ICs, so it was difficult to have a large number of teachers as participants and ensure that each received the appropriate amount of attention and engagement. Providing only minimal interaction between the coaches and the participants to increase the number of participants in the study may influence the teachers’ perceptions of their work with the coaches and likewise their responses to survey and interview questions. To ensure that each participant was provided adequate and typical instructional support, the number of participants was limited to allow the coaches to spend an appropriate and equal amount of time with each participant. Teachers who were offered instructional support from coaches were identified at the PLC meetings. These individuals were selected based on standard evaluative measures, which included observation, performance reviews, and individual requests. As such, the participants in the study were limited to the teachers who were identified as those who could benefit from the instructional support and volunteered to participate. Even though certain teachers were selected to receive instructional support, their participation in the study was not mandatory, despite being assigned to work with an IC. While acknowledging the potential bias in the study sample resulting from the selection of specific teachers at BES, including the exclusion of newly hired teachers in the upcoming fall, the impact on the study was minimal. This study sought to collect and analyze data from ICs and teachers already acquainted with the prevailing institutional culture, as the information they are able to provide a richer, more detailed description of the role of ICs as perceived by the teachers. Limitations Both anticipated and unanticipated circumstances could constrain the implementation of a research study and have an impact on the results and ability to answer the research questions. However, it was important to anticipate possible study limitations and determine ways to mitigate the situations as they arise. The state of public education is such that employees are constantly being moved to other institutions, other positions, or asked to serve in other capacities. This can have an impact on the study as it is planned for the instructional coaching sessions to last for 9-weeks, and it is always possible that during those 9 -weeks an IC or participant can be moved to another school or position. For example, there are typically four ICs at BES; however, one of the coaches recently transitioned to a district-based role and that position was not filled during the academic school year. In an effort to mitigate this type of situation, it was necessary to ensure that all coaches were aware of the work with the participants in case one coach needed to take on additional teachers. As a result of the limited population of individuals who qualify to participate in the study, it was possible that the data and results could be affected by the smaller number. However, this qualitative study collected data via two surveys, as well as a semi-structured interview, and the collection of qualitative information resulted in additional information from each participant. So, although the data collected did not represent a large number of participants, the data was lengthy and in-depth and provided an appropriate amount of information to allow for answers to the research questions. During the semi-structured interview, it was important to allow the participants to provide as much information as they felt like contributing to ensure that a significant amount of data was collected and analyzed. There have been a variety of changes made to the instructional practices at BES to improve teaching and learning. Considering the many variables of instructional change, instructional coaching in isolation is not known to be the source for the performance growth and proficiency composite score reflected in the school’s annual report card. However, instructional coaching as an increase in school performance is the result of various variables. Although the subject of my positionality as principal and supervisor was discussed under assumptions, it must also be covered as a limitation. If participants did not feel comfortable providing information related to their work with the ICs, their personal teaching efforts and abilities, or their relationships with students, the appropriate data would not be collected. As previously indicated, it was important to make sure the participants understood the importance of the study, results, and their participation in data collection. Participants were assured that their information, as well as their comments, remained confidential, which played a role in mitigating this issue. Finally, this study required the coordination of many schedules, as well as plans for multiple meetings with various individuals involved in the study. Instructional coaches attended monthly PLC meetings that included the scholarly practitioner. Coaches and teachers were required to meet as indicated by their coaching schedule. I scheduled individual meetings with the participants to conduct the semi-structured interviews. I also ensured that I was available to meet with both participants and coaches if questions or concerns were identified. When a large group of people are required to coordinate already busy schedules, it is difficult to manage. Some meetings needed to be held virtually rather than in person. There are always situations that may occur and create limitations on the study where one cannot be adequately prepared. These can include pandemic-type illnesses, technological concerns, job changes, and individuals on leave among others. Although it was important to recognize that possible limitations may have an impact on the study and identify ways to mitigate the limitations, it was not always possible to ensure that all situations have been appropriately considered and evaluated. Significance of the Study With the direct focus on and lack of resources for public education, this study proved critical in determining the steps to enhance coaching, impact teachers’ performance, and ultimately improve academic achievement. It was important to ensure that available resources were being used appropriately and instructional support was an area that seemed to benefit from additional funding at BES. Data gathered in this study focused on optimizing the utilization of ICs to enhance the efficacy of teacher instructional delivery. This research was of considerable importance as it aimed to provide valuable insights for stakeholders, including teachers, local and district-level administrators, and coaches, regarding the impact of instructional coaching on enhancing teacher effectiveness. This study focused on the impact of instructional coaching based on teachers’ perceptions and how it affects teacher efficacy. Data was collected that sought to provide information on the impacts of instructional coaching, but more specifically, how teachers who are receiving the coaching perceive their experiences. This may allow for the alteration of current instructional coaching and other instructional support options in an effort to improve teacher efficacy and ultimately student achievement. Instructional coaches with significant experience in the field who are considered to be experts in their particular subject are able to share their instructional strategies and techniques, while also providing an evaluation of the participant’s current style. Knowing that most public schools are working with limited budgets, the results of this study may significantly impact how they utilize their funds in an effort to allocate resources appropriately and ensure that they are able to have the most positive impact on the greatest number of students. In considering the significance of this study, it was also important to review how equity and social justice were impacted based on the results, as well as the opportunities to provide advances in the practice of instructional coaching and support. Advancing Equity and Social Justice As previously described, BES is a Title 1 school and although the school enjoys positive support from the surrounding community, it is still a school with more than 70% of the students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. As a Title 1 school, federal funding is provided to support the inequities of the enrolled population of students and BES was fortunate to be able to use federal funding to hire instructional coaches. Many of the non-Title 1 schools do not have funding to hire ICs. Typically, district-level ICs are assigned to two schools where they are only able to provide support twice a week. Title 1 schools that have full-time ICs also receive the benefit of the additional coaching support provided by the district. Students in this population may not have advanced educational backgrounds in their families and many will be first-generation college students if they choose to attend. As a result, students come from varied educational backgrounds and typically need a variety of specific academic support and instruction. Instructional coaches provide their expertise from years of working with various populations to assist teachers in determining the strategies and techniques that worked best for the students in each classroom. Given that students arrive at BES with diverse educational backgrounds from their pre-elementary school experiences, it was vital to guarantee equal learning opportunities for all. Instructional Coaches play a key role in guiding teachers on both instructional strategies and classroom management practices to achieve this goal. Enhancing teaching effectiveness, particularly teacher efficacy, helped more students feel at ease in the classroom and believe that their educational requirements are being fulfilled. The goal of this study was not only to explore and communicate teachers' views on collaborating with ICs but also to further recognize and affirm the importance of having ICs available on-site to assist teachers. Advances in Practice Instructional coaching has been an element of instructional support within FCPS for many years, yet the availability varies across the district. This study sought to reveal the benefits that continuous instructional coaching support has on teacher effectiveness based on teacher perceptions of their experiences. Although ICs currently are available in FCPS part-time, it is possible that with a similar structure to that of the instructional coaching model at BES, there would be a greater impact on teacher effectiveness and ultimately student achievement district wide. This study collected information regarding the instructional coaching model at BES and provided district leaders with the results based on full-time coaching support in an effort to showcase benefits to both teachers and students. Additionally, the study allowed for the opportunity to collect opinions and personal experiences from teachers regarding instructional coaching. With the collection of this information and additional discussions with the ICs at BES, the current status of the instructional coaching plan was evaluated and realigned as necessary. The details of any applicable updates and realignments provided beneficial information to others in the district who were seeking to increase or implement an instructional coaching model. Summary Teachers who surpass performance expectations are frequently regarded as proficient or even advanced in instructional delivery and were called upon to disseminate their exemplary methods to teachers who could benefit from diverse instructional assistance. Schools consistently seek to equip teachers with opportunities to participate in professional development in an effort to provide innovative and effective instructional strategies and techniques. The utilization of instructional coaching to offer continuous support is one way that administrators can provide an option that may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of teachers. Instructional coaches worked with teachers individually, and teachers benefited from obtaining instructional coaching tailored to their individual teaching needs. Additionally, the feedback provided by ICs to teachers typically is characterized by a collaborative, rather than an evaluative, approach. As a result, teachers were more likely to participate in the coaching process with an open mind and a willingness to receive helpful feedback. BES is fortunate to receive funding that was allocated for the implementation of instructional support provided to teachers; however, even though BES has experienced positive academic growth recently, it is unknown if the use of instructional coaching has played a role in this change. The purpose of this study was to collect data from teachers who are participating in instructional coaching to determine their perception of the instructional coaching process and experience. After participating in an instructional coaching session, teachers who are participating were asked to report how they perceived working collaboratively with a coach. Chapter 2 presented relevant research that allowed for a comparison of the results of this study and other similar studies. It was important to consider previous studies, as well as the historical background of instructional coaching to provide a valid discussion of both the literature and this study. This study examined the implementation of instructional coaching as a means of professional development by local and district administrators, with the specific objective of enhancing teacher effectiveness a review of existing scholarly works offered significant knowledge regarding the effective integration of instructional coaching methodologies to enhance teacher efficacy. 2 2 2 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE Throughout the history of education, administrators and educators have sought ways to ensure that they are providing students with the highest quality education while remaining cognizant and in compliance with state and federal standards and mandates. Over the course of several decades, there have been various federal legislative initiatives, such as Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, the Race to the Top Act of 2011, and the Reading Excellence Act of 1999 (Kurtz et al., 2020) have had an impact on public education. These initiatives have consistently highlighted the importance of providing teachers with the necessary support to implement evidence-based practices to enhance student learning outcomes and behavioral development (Kurtz et al., 2020). Therefore, it was vital to evaluate various practices to determine what can lead to the most positive outcomes in both student achievement and teacher efficacy and instructional coaching is the strategy upon which this study focused. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of instructional coaching on teacher efficacy based on teachers’ perceptions. In an effort to ensure that all aspects of the study and professional development opportunities were examined, this chapter evaluated various aspects of professional development, teaching, strategies, and other relevant concepts. According to Denton and Hasbrouck (2009), coaching has been positioned as a crucial component in facilitating educational reform and offering ongoing, integrated, and personalized professional growth opportunities. The professional development obtained through instructional coaching is tailored to meet the individual needs of the teachers who are receiving coaching assistance. Instructional coaching has emerged as a prominent option for policymakers aiming to improve reading and literacy instruction by providing on-site, personalized, and ongoing professional development (Bean et al., 2010; Deussen et al., 2007). The success of following the recommended strategies offered by the IC was not always understood. Even when an instructional method was implemented with fidelity, the effectiveness of the strategy was undetermined. This research collected teachers' views on the effectiveness of the strategies suggested by ICs for modifying instructional delivery methods. Understanding the possible impact of the instructional coach-teacher relationship on the coaching process was essential for building a positive collaborative dynamic. This study was important in establishing how to optimize ICs in order to improve the effectiveness of teacher instructional delivery. Based on the perspectives of teachers who have received coaching help, this study investigated the effectiveness of instructional coaching, and confirmed the appropriate allocation of resources toward instructional coaching efforts. This chapter reviews the historical background of instructional coaching and its effort to improve teacher efficacy. Similar to teaching, instructional coaching is a professional endeavor that necessitates a combination of artistic and skillful approaches to support teachers in enhancing their pedagogical practices and effectively instructing a diverse student population that may display various levels of academic achievement. This chapter begins by examining the conceptualization of instructional coaching, and how the role and responsibilities of ICs are both specified and perceived. Self-efficacy is discussed as the theoretical framework of the study. Additionally, important institutional and educational reforms that have impacted instructional coaching over time are covered. Most teachers are required to participate in various forms of professional development and instructional coaching could be considered to be a type of professional development. As a result, this chapter provides relevant background information on professional development. The focus of the study was on the impact of institutional coaching; therefore, it was important to understand the various aspects of instructional coaching, including different coaching models and the building of relationships that can occur as a result. Finally, the chapter closed with a discussion on measuring effectiveness, both if it was possible to measure the impact of instructional coaching on teacher effectiveness and if instructional coaching was effective as a form of professional development. The research undertaken in this study was sourced from a range of databases, including Google Scholar, ERIC, JSTOR, EBSCO, Institute of Education Sciences, and Science Direct. The sources cited in this study were derived from scholarly journal articles, books, and research publications published within the last two decades. Publications were utilized to substantiate and underpin the historical conceptualization and establishment of the coaching process. Whenever possible, scholarly articles and research conducted within the last 10 years were employed to examine the use and success of instructional coaching as reported in other studies. Conceptual Framework In order to construct this particular study, it was important to review and utilize instructional coaching models as the conceptual framework that provides the underlying structure for the study. This study used a concept that is similar to the current instructional coaching practices implemented at BES. At BES, the instructional coaching strategies identified in Knight’s Impact Cycle provide a structure of instructional coaching that best complements the practices that was be applied in this study. Building relationships is the first step in the coaching process at BES. The next step is determining the instructional issue, followed by establishing an instructional plan, and then putting the plan into action until the intended results are achieved. Jim Knight's Impact Cycle was used as the theoretical framework for which ICs utilized when implementing two strategies. This framework focuses on the ability of the IC to support the instructional needs of teachers by utilizing a triangular approach. This approach included the IC's ability to assist teachers to (1) Identify, (2) Learn, and (3) Improve their instructional practices (Knight, 2007, p. 2). This study implemented this framework with teachers who teach various grade levels and subjects. This cycle provided ICs with the opportunity to collaborate with teachers to learn more about the specific area of instruction that teachers find challenging for their students, identify goals, select instructional strategies to meet the identified goals, continuously monitor progress, and problem-solve until the goals have been met (Knight, 2007, p. 3). Knight (2007) suggested that teachers do not resist change so much as they resist poorly designed change initiatives. Therefore, a successful change required the design of continuous professional development programs that were contextualized, built a strong teacher knowledge base, create a community of learners, and, potentially most importantly, are focused on student achievement as the common goal (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Reeves, 2010). Instructional Coaching Instructional coaching is a model developed by Jim Knight and his colleagues at the University of Kansas in the Center for Research on Learning (Cornett & Knight, 2008; Devine et al., 2013; Knight, 2007). This model is based on the partnership approach (Knight, 2007) and utilizes “knowledge transfer, knowledge development, and human interaction” (Cornett & Knight, 2008, p. 206). Instructional coaching is based on seven key principles: equality, choice, voice, dialogue, reflection, praxis, and reciprocity (Cornett & Knight, 2008; Devine et al., 2013). Equality indicates that the partnership is a relationship between two equal professional peers who are collaborating and adding equal value to the coaching process. Choice describes the idea of what is to be learned and how it will be learned is the ultimate decision of the teacher. This ensures that the instructional coaching process is created specifically to meet the individual needs of that teacher and focuses on driving their own development. The principle of voice reflects the idea that each voice, opinion, and point of view is an important part of the process. Teachers were encouraged to actively and vocally participate in their coaching experience to reiterate that their participation in the process was vital. A dialogue takes place throughout the coaching experience, wherein no one imposes or dominates the conversation. Participants in the coaching process are partners and engage equally in exploration and conversation to ensure the creation of an open and authentic dialogue. Reflection was an important part of the instructional coaching process and teachers are regularly asked to reflect on ideas and changes before choosing to implement them. The goal was to become a reflective practitioner and use these skills to continue making considered choices. The ultimate focus of instructional coaching was to assist teachers with making decisions about their ideas and applying them in their classrooms, so praxis was an important principle of the instructional coaching process leading to success. Finally, reciprocity ensures that all participants benefit from the instructional coaching process, where even the coach gains knowledge and skills in addition to the teacher. Instructional coaching is typically seen as a non-supervisory role, which can result in an increase in participation or even willingness to consider participating. “Instructional coaches do not typically have positional authority to evaluate other adults; thus, they do not work from a position of supervisory power and must use expertise and relationships to exert influence” (Gallucci et al., 2010, p. 922). Instructional coaches must be skilled in content knowledge, leadership abilities, relationship-building, and communication (Cornett & Knight, 2008; Gallucci et al., 2010). The structure of the coaching that takes place was highly dependent upon the context and the needs of the participants, but was most successful when utilizing strategies including modeling, pre- and post-conferences, and observation (Cornett & Knight, 2008; Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). This cycle typically involves a pre-conference meeting to establish needs and parameters, a modeling or demonstrative session, an opportunity for the teacher to perform and the coach to observe, and a post-conference or reflection meeting to discuss the entire cycle and overall experience (Knight, 2007). Impact Cycle Coaching models for education also may include peer coaching, cognitive coaching, instructional coaching, content-centered coaching, and pedagogical coaching (Knight, 2018). Knight highlights essential aspects of instructional coaching prevalent in the coaching cycle, such as forming a relationship with teachers, identifying the goal, learning how to implement the strategies, and monitoring the strategy for improvement. The coaching process implemented at BES is closely aligned with the cycle of coaching identified by Knight as the Impact Cycle. Instructional coaches at BES collaborate with teachers during PLCs during which instructional planning, instructional delivery, and instructional challenges are discussed. Student data is reviewed to distinguish areas of high and low student achievement, common concept errors, and common errors of practice in student performance. The PLC collaboration that is held weekly during teacher planning hour also allows teachers to share and embrace instructional strategies. Instructional coaches meet with teachers individually when they encounter instructional challenges that require continuous coaching in the process described above. The coaching process includes many of the components identified in the Knight’s Impact Cycle including one on-one meetings, observations, modeling, and parallel teaching during small groups. For this study, instructional coaches were engaged in two of those strategies, modeling and parallel teaching during small groups. Instructional Modeling Modeling allows ICs to demonstrate instructional practices in a classroom while the teacher observes (Knight, 2018). Knight reported that in earlier studies, teachers who devoted themselves to improving their instructional delivery identified instructional modeling as a strategy that not only allows them to hear methods of improvement, but it also allowed them to see the strategy in implementation (Knight, 2018). Co-teaching Parallel teaching is a common model of co-teaching used in classrooms (Friend et al., 2010). According to Shin et al. (2016), co-teaching is beneficial for both the well-being of teachers and their capacity to manage their workloads since it divides the obligations of teaching across multiple instructors. Co-teaching is a form of teaching in heterogeneous groups (Chitiyo, 2017; Ricci & Fingon, 2018; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). It has been recognized as one approach of providing support for students while they are attending school (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2014). The term "co-teaching" refers to the practice of teaching two subjects simultaneously. According to Friend et al. (2010), effective co-teaching occurs when teachers combine their abilities in the areas of planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching and learning together. The strategies that are identified in Knight’s final three phases of his instructional coaching cycle encompass a triangulated approach in which the ICs support teachers to: identify, learn, and improve (see Figure 1). This cycle of coaching allows the coach and the teacher to Figure 1. The Impact Cycle. reach a shared vision and develop a plan that allows them to obtain their desired results. The process is uninterrupted as the main goal was for the instructional delivery to make continuous improvement. Identify When teachers seek the support of ICs to improve instructional practices and increase effectiveness, the first step requires them to conduct an observation to identify the instructional obstacles that are preventing them from being effective in their delivery (Knight, 2018). According to Knight (2018), this stage serves as the driving force that will guide both the coach and the teacher towards the desired outcome through observation and collaboration. Goals that can support the instructional change that is needed in the learning environment must be powerful goals. In setting powerful goals, Knight (2018) suggests that the teacher and coach select powerful, easy, emotionally compelling, reachable, and student-focused (PEERS) goals. The first step is to create a goal that is clear and easily implemented for positive change. During the second step, Knight (2018) illuminates the need for coaches to be cognizant of teachers’ emotions. Next, the coach must be sensitive in appealing to the emotions of a teacher, which increases their willingness to embrace change. Unreachable goals have the potential to make teachers feel unsuccessful; therefore, goals must be specific and reachable (Knight, 2018, p. 70). All goals should be centered on student outcomes. Knight (2018) asserts that the success of students is the best indicator of the effectiveness a goal has on instructional delivery. Like other stages in the cycle, this stage is redefined based on the instructional needs of the teacher (Knight, 2018, p. 26). Learn The second stage in the impact cycle is the learning stage. Instructional coaches must be knowledgeable of the instructional strategies that they suggest (Knight, 2018). Instructional coaches are more effective in addressing instructional practices when they provide teachers with an alternative strategy in which they can provide clear directions for implementing the suggested strategy. Knight (2018) asserts that instructional coaches should have a limited repertoire of strategies that they know well as opposed to having many strategies about which they know very little (p. 102). Improve The final phase of the Impact Cycle evaluates the strategies implemented to address the instructional needs of the teacher. The collaboration between the teacher and coach is guided by a four-step process in which Knight (2018) determines if the target goal was accomplished. The four-step process first confirms the direction for change that the teacher and coach desire. Knight (2018) finds that the next step includes a review of progress based on students’ progress after the implementation of different instructional strategies have been implemented. Improvements are identified to address areas in which student progress does not meet the predetermined goals and continues to require alternative strategies, the third step of Knight’s (2018) improvement phase. The coach and teacher collaborated in the last stage of the process to determine the next actions required to meet the instructional goals. Instructional coaching has long been utilized as a strategy for providing professional development and support to educators. This particular strategy has proven successful in other locations; however, this study sought to determine the impact of instructional coaching at BES. In constructing this study, it was important to recognize that various models within instructional coaching serve to frame the research and provide guidance throughout. Theoretical Framework This research investigated the influence of instructional coaching on teachers as perceived by the teachers themselves, with a particular emphasis on the effect on their self-efficacy concerning their teaching abilities. Self-efficacy is defined as a belief in own’s own ability to perform an action or activity necessary to achieve a goal or task (Bandura, 1997). Additionally, Bandura (1997) indicated that self-efficacy involved one’s belief in their own ability to organize and execute the course of action required to attain a goal. As outlined earlier, the objective of this study was to utilize instructional coaching as a means to positively influence teacher efficacy, based on the teachers' own assessments and perceptions of their teaching competencies. Efficacy perceptions can develop from gradually gaining skills and experience over time (Bandura, 1997), which shows that individuals form beliefs related to self-efficacy by examining information gained from their own previous experiences (Kurbanoglu, 2003). This can lead to difficulty in actually measuring self-efficacy beliefs, especially since there is a lack of this information at BES. Asking the teachers to describe their perceptions of the instructional coaching impact and their own experiences allowed for the collection of information related to self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by characteristics and prior experiences within a particular domain (Abbitt, 2011). Four main sources drive people’s beliefs in themselves, including (a) mastery experience-past performance, (b) vicarious experiences-learning through others, (c) social influences-social persuasion, and (d) physiological and affective states-somatic and emotional states (Bandura, 1997). Mastery experiences relate to actual performance of a task and are described as the most powerful source of information influencing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Successful performance leads to an increase in self-efficacy but repeated failures can result in lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Mastery experiences have the strongest influence on self-efficacy beliefs and the strongest influence on behavior (Abbitt, 2011). Upon determining that mastery experiences have the strongest influence on self-efficacy and teacher behavior specifically, additional research considered other influences, including instructional strategies and time on task, as well as their effect on self-efficacy beliefs (Abbitt, 2011). Both domains showed an influential role in teachers’ thoughts and actions regarding their success in the classroom. There are barriers when it comes to the implementation of instructional coaching models. Teachers may be hesitant to adopt curricular or instructional innovations, especially if they are used to doing something in the way they have always done it in the past (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- Leftwich, 2010). Research has shown that the main obstacles that can affect teachers’ ability to adopt and implement curricular or instructional changes include knowledge of the subject, external factors (lack of support/supplies), and internal factors (lack of confidence; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Institutional and Educational Reforms Instructional coaching became popular in the 1990s after innovative research on teacher support through peer coaching (Galey, 2016), and the demands for ICs have increased over time to support teachers effectively by staying knowledgeable of additional standards-based educational changes, including Common Core State Standards (CCSS; Galey, 2016). Additionally, similar to BES, Title I funds supported the hiring of ICs (Domina et al., 2015). This trend has gained particular significance following the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2000, which underscored the importance of highly qualified reading teachers and the implementation of evidence-based practices (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009). The enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2002 served as a prominent demonstration of the federal government’s emphasis on the provision of reading and literacy education. The Reading First initiative, a component of Title 1 Part B of the bill, is designed to provide substantial federal funding to assist elementary schools in implementing evidence-based reading curricula and progress monitoring. This initiative recommends using literacy coaches as support (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Scott et al., 2012). Instructional coaches have been employed to support teachers in implementing response-to-intervention models, which are hierarchical systems of assistance for students with special needs, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Scott et al., 2012). In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to better promote equity in education amongst all schools (Loewus, 2016). In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Bill (NCLB) emphasizing accountability in American schools. One of the NCLB legislation’s goals was for all students to be competent readers with increased funding for support. Unfortunately, research showed a trend of declining scores (Irwin et al., 2022), which continued in both reading and math, specifically scores among fourth-grade students. In 2022, the NCES showed that only 36% of fourth-grade students performed at or above proficient in math, while only 33% performed at or above proficiency in reading (Irwin et al., 2022). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by Present Barack Obama in 2015 to again attempt to assist districts and schools with students who had underperforming scores. The funds were allocated to be spent on needed programs to prepare students for college and careers. Additionally, ESSA allows local school districts autonomy with state funding, as the goal of the Act is to ensure that all children succeed, so educational stakeholders have utilized research to identify diverse elements to influence student learning (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Scott et al., 2012). It was at this point that schools were able to use these funds for instructional coaching to increase student achievement, resulting in more than double the number of ICs as on staff in the past 15 years (Domina et al., 2015). Instructional coaching has continued to be in high demand as a technique to increase teacher support, predominantly in elementary schools (Davis et al., 2018). Elliott et al. (2019) indicated that instructional coaching embodies several factors that can enhance teacher effectiveness, from planning with the teachers, modeling lessons, conducting formal and informal observations, and providing feedback. Professional Development Professional development is provided to improve teaching and learning on the federal, state, and local levels. When there is a shift in education, states and districts seek methods to educate administrators and teachers so that the content is mastered well enough for implementation to occur (Joyce & Calhoun, 2019). The need to monitor newly adopted strategies remains necessary within the context of implementation. In an attempt to monitor effectiveness, many school districts put into action a coaching model to ensure efficacy. Professional development in the field of education has been studied for many years, but always with the goal of improving student achievement through a focus on teacher learning (Avalos, 2011; Guskey, 2009; Kretlow et al., 2011; Slepkov, 2008). As previously discussed, there are a variety of ways to present PD opportunities to teachers, perhaps dependent on the learning needs, skills sought, or context. Additionally, it has been noted that various types of professional development can have differing effects on teacher learning or growth (Avalos, 2011). Instructional coaching serves as an important form of professional development and undergirds this particular study; therefore, it is necessary to review various PD opportunities to confirm that the selection of instructional coaching was correct for this context. Professional development that is needed to address ineffective instructional practices may not exist or be available when it is needed or for the length of time that it is needed. Knight (2019) recognized that based on the spending of 50 of the largest school districts in the United States, $8 billion was spent on professional development directed toward providing teachers with the tools needed to implement evidence-based practices. While helpful information can be gathered from one-day professional development, effective teaching methods often require more than a day of information gathering. In many countries, teachers are expected to receive continuous professional development to maintain best practices of instructional approaches aimed to maximize student achievement (Day & Sachs, 2004; Vangrieken et al., 2017; Vries et al., 2013). At the same time, researchers (Day, 1999; Hargreaves, 2000; Vangrieken et al., 2017) maintained that all professional development is considered significant in its attempt to cultivate improved outcomes in teaching and learning. Therefore, some school districts seek to provide one day of professional development to support teachers in an effort to remain informed of the latest theories and trends that focus on improving teaching and learning. However, in a study conducted by Al-Balushi (2021) it was determined that one-shot professional development sessions do not always produce the desired change in teaching and learning. Teachers who participated in the study viewed professional development opportunities as most relevant and suitable when they offered solutions to their everyday challenges. It was determined that the PD in this particular study was effective because it was ongoing and presented by a teacher who was knowledgeable in the area of focus. The individual was also accessible and available to provide timely feedback (Al-Balushi, 2021). The study conducted by Al-Balushi in 2021 is one of many in which teachers identified the positive effects of professional development and growth through collaboration and consultation received by a teacher mentor or coach on the school or district level. Joyce and Showers (2002) conducted a study on the impact of various types of professional development on teachers’ learning. The study focused on teachers’ utilization of the information learned during training sessions. Only 5% of teachers used the information gathered in teaching and shared professional development environments. In comparison, 95% of teachers utilized data from a workshop to improve education and to learn when 30 hours of peer coaching was added to transfer the information into practice (Joyce & Calhoun, 2019). The personal aspect of the implementation does not suggest that one-day workshops do not offer valuable information; however, it does appear that implementation becomes more practical when combined with collaborative support. Teachers exit their undergraduate teaching programs with the most recent pedagogical and curricular examples to bring to their classrooms; however, they are only beginning their teaching careers and may not have learned the importance of classroom management strategies and behavioral techniques. This is something that is learned over time, but all beginning teachers can benefit from mentoring and guidance from someone who has previously had similar experiences. This is the ultimate goal of instructional coaching, allowing someone with experience and expertise the opportunity to share this information with someone who may be newer to the field of education or may be seeking additional information when implementing specific skills. Assisting individuals with the development of educational competence and a greater understanding of the teaching process can benefit those who are beginning their teaching career or those who are seeking innovative techniques (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000). “For practicing teachers, PD is perhaps one of the most important bridges from research to classroom implementation” (Kretlow et al., 2011, p. 349). Instructional coaching can provide this bridge for such individuals. Hargreaves (2000) described the stages through which teachers gain knowledge and experience in regard to teaching: (a) pre-professional, (b) autonomous professional, (c) collegial professional, and (d) post-professional. The descriptions provide additional details regarding the experiences and professionalism of teachers in particular stages in their careers. In the 1960s, when teachers were described as autonomous professionals, they were separated from their colleagues and taught in their own classrooms (Hargreaves, 2000). At this time induction and mentoring programs were being introduced, yet they were only seen as programs for new teachers or those needing assistance. The mid-1980s was described as the age of the collegial professional and included an increase in pressure to collaborate as the difficulty and complexity of teaching increased (Hargreaves, 2000). This was also the time when professional communities were created to provide space for risk taking, collaboration, and inquiry. It was in the 21st century when teaching began to require the ability to work with diverse groups as a result of increased pressure and demands from various constituencies (Hargreaves, 2000). PD opportunities expanded and technological advances led to PD that aligns with goals to improve student learning (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2000; Guskey, 2009). It was during this time that Hargreaves (2000) provided two possibilities as a result of the way PD and teacher education was headed: (1) a social movement that includes positive learning opportunities and the creation of new partnerships to advance learning for students and teacher growth, or (2) an increase in pressure and work demands that result in a breakdown in teaching and opportunities for professional development and growth are reduced or eliminated. School districts and individual school sites offer different types of professional development opportunities. In some instances, the administration at the individual school can make decisions related to the PD that is offered based on what is necessary at the school and what they determine will be advantageous. If the context of the PD opportunity is not relevant to a particular group, it will be unlikely that the participants will leave the PD feeling as though they gained new knowledge or skills. Typical PD programs may include courses and workshops, along with in-service and coaching models, each serving differe