The Role of Principals and Their Association with Instructional Coaching - Thesis Example

? THE ROLE OF PRINCIPALS AND THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING: WHAT ARE THEIR PERCEPTIONS? by Presented to University Date 1. Executive summary This paper is an inquiry into the role of leadership within schools and how the role of principal has changed over time. The aim is to determine what principal’s understand about the role of a coach and how they perceive their role as leader in association with the notion of instructional coaching, and to determine their perceptions of the instructional coach. Research shows that there is a lack of any thorough research as to the effectiveness of instructional coaching in relation to improved student outcomes but from the perspectives of principals within the limited research available, it seems the multi-roles employed by coaches are valued and respected and considered as a necessary resource for improving and supporting enhancement of teachers’ teaching practices. 2.0 Introduction Leadership in education has been defined in a plethora of ways over the last decades and this accumulation of varied definitions serves to make the immense differences in opinions and discernment about school leadership more apparent. Historically, educational leadership was considered a means of support for teaching staff by heads of department, school principals, lead or master teachers, social workers, supervisors and education specialists (Sparks, 2002; Sledge & Morehead, 2006). During the twentieth century the role of school leaders has changed significantly, and as Suskavcevic & Blake (2001, p.2) point out, it has been ‘highly transformative’. They further claim that in the 1930s the primary role for principals was as ‘scientific manager’; in the 1940s it was as ‘democratic leader’; in the 1970s it was as ‘humanistic facilitator’; in the 1980s it became as ‘instructional leader’ (p.2) and currently it is as ‘transformational leader’ (p.4). 2.1 Research aims (questions) In light of the current situation within school leadership today and the way in which roles are changing for principals, this study is undertaken solely by researching current literature in accordance with following aims. Aims 1. To critically examine the role of educational leadership 2. To understand the ways in which the role of educational leadership is changing 3. To understand the concept of coaching, particularly instructional coaching 4. To determine the role of principal in association with instructional coaching 5. To determine how principals perceive their role in association with instructional coaching 3.0 Literature Review 3.1 What is school leadership? As far back as 1954, Mackenzie & Stephen considered the principal of a school to be the leader in terms of instruction (cited in Greenfield, 1987). They considered leadership to be a ‘natural accompaniment of the goal-seeking behavior of human beings’ (p.4), and that any pursuits undertaken by one teacher that assists in another teacher achieving their goal is an example of leadership. They further purport that leadership can be assumed by anyone considered as ‘having control and means’ of what others want (p.9) and that the concept is dynamic and thus forever changing rather than being constant (p.10). Wasley (1991, p. 64), on the other hand, claims leadership is ‘the ability to encourage colleagues to change, to do things they wouldn't ordinarily consider without the influence of the leader ’; whereas Bolman & Deal (1994) consider that every teacher is a leader. Kowalski (1995) adds to their argument and considers teacher leaders to be teachers who are authorized and given the power to make pertinent decisions that impact on educational processes and educational outcomes. Katzenmeyer & Moller (2001) disillusioned with school leadership, and after a comprehensive review of literature, past experiences, and discussion with principals and other educational leaders, arrived at the conclusion that the definition of educational leadership is evolving and that teachers who are leaders ‘lead within and beyond the classroom, identify with and contribute to a community of teachers, learners, and leaders, and influence others toward improved educational practice; and accept responsibility for achieving the outcomes of their leadership’ (p.6). For Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson & Hann (2002), educational leadership is the ‘principled action to achieve whole-school success … and it contributes to long-term, enhanced quality of community life’ (p. 10); Patterson & Patterson (2004) define teacher leaders as those who work with other teachers with the intent of both informally and formally, providing improvement in teaching and learning. They claim that formal leaders are empowered by school principals, while informal leaders are those who are identified and acknowledged by other teachers because of their abilities to provide support and expertise to other teachers, as well as developing and building on relationships among their colleagues. Along the same vein, Christie & Lingard (2001) suggest that leadership should be considered from three perspectives, which include leadership, management and headship (p.3). They further assert that management and headship are not the same as leadership because they are more to do with structures and processes, with accountabilities, standards and responsibilities. Leaders gain their position from others – followers – but management and headship positions are specified from above by organizations; leaders function by influence (Murphy, 2005), whereas management and heads function more by compulsion. Like Christie & Lingard, Mayeski & Gaddy (2000) also purport to the notion of leadership not being equivalent to management; they claim that management, if they are to be leaders, need to adopt a ‘stewardship’ style or ‘partnership and empowerment’ style of leadership wherein ‘ownership and responsibility’ are felt among the staff (p.10), and the main aim is to foster a shared vision for all. York-Barr & Duke (2004) claim the concept of leadership is neither theoretically nor functionally adequately defined. They consider it to be a process wherein teachers in an attempt to improve learning and learning outcomes for students, manipulate and inspire all educational members of staff to enhance and further develop teaching and learning systems. They further claim that teacher leadership incorporates individual, team and organizational development (p.287-288). Similarly, Danielson (2006) and Killion and Harrison (2006) (cited in National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2010), claim that informal teacher-leaders are those individuals who take the initiative to become the go-between between staff and administration, monitor other teachers, marshal them for a mutual purpose, and to impart their experience, knowledge and skills of teaching to others. One fundamental theme emanating from all these definitions is that they all incorporate the notion of one person having an impact or sway over others, and as Christie & Lingard (2001, p.2) purport, unlike management it can operate both within and externally to formal organization. It is worth noting at this point that a comprehensive review on teacher leadership undertaken by Murphy (2005) resulted in ten pages of varying definitions but in summary he claimed that ‘leadership has historically been defined across two axes, one representing a sense of vision about where an organization should be headed and a second capturing the relational work required to move organizational participants toward that end’ (p. 15). 3.2 The changing role of school leadership The requirements of school leaders and the demands placed on them have increased greatly over the last decades, and both government and public enquiry has forced them to be more accountable for every student’s outcomes and success, as well as to successfully manage the school. Student populations are changing, necessitating more inventive and receptive teaching approaches; increased child poverty requires contemporary and additional inclusive education programs; such changes necessitate new models of leadership (Beachum & Dentith, 2004). Leadership is ‘the wise use of power’ (Bennis, 1989, p.194) but according to many researchers, leadership by school principals has not for the most part illustrated this judicious practice of power (Terry, n.d., p.1), wherein teachers have had little say in school practices such as curriculum design, assessment, timetabling or resource allocation; they have not been included in discussions in relation to educational reform or restructuring, and have not been encouraged to do so (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998); in fact according to Terry, teachers have had very little control over their working environment in the past. Terry (p, 4) further purports that the underlying causes for such ineffective school leadership is summarized very well by Covery (1989, p.34), who claimed that decades of advice provided in print focused on “personality growth communication, skill training, and education in the field of influence strategies and positive thinking’; techniques he considered as calculating and controlling and lead to damaging relationships. While there is no question that leadership is essential for attaining the vision, goals and outcomes of any organization or institution, leaders need to be committed and trustworthy (Foster, 1986). The current model of principal as an effective transformationalist means that he/she is able to redistribute much of the decision making by empowering teachers to take responsibility; thereby giving them a sense of ‘ownership and control of their jobs’ (Terry, p.4) which in turns fosters a more productive labor force (Wellins, Byham & Wilson, 1991, cited in Terry, n.d.). This empowerment however, does not denote surrender of all authority by principals but means that authority will be collaborative and broad-based. So it seems that principals today, no longer represent ownership of power, nor are they able to be sole decision makers if they are to be successful and effective leaders in today’s educational environment. They need to develop, encourage and foster mutual and shared planning and decision making with others. In summary so far, it is apparent that the role of principal has changed significantly over the years to encompass a number of responsibilities, and that today’s principal needs to be experienced and attuned at abstract thinking in order to transform the institution via its teachers and other staff. The primary goal of any principal is to ensure achievement and successful outcomes of students, and it is the teachers who make this happen (Hattie, 2003). A principal therefore needs to know how to realize maximum opportunities for teacher improvement and learning; the most fundamental means of such opportunity is by mentoring and coaching (Robertson, 2005), which according to Joyce & Showers (2003), cultivates profound development in professional learning. 3.3. What is coaching? Coaching in education has generally been used in terms of helping new teachers in their teaching role and practice but more recently it is considered as a way of improving and entrenching professional development of teachers gained outside the institution within their classroom practice, and many schools include coaching as a component of their teacher development program. According to Cowie (2010) however, there appears to be some contradiction and confusion about the term coaching and mentoring, and further purports that in general, mentoring refers to a situation wherein someone in a senior positions assists somebody else to learn and develop within a new role over a long time period; whereas coaching is usually considered as support while learning a specific skill in a short time frame (Cowie, 2010). Dorval, Isaksen & Noller (2001) on the other hand believe there are both similarities and differences between the two, and that in any relationship the balance may shift between the two. They purport both five differences and five similarities; the differences include their emphasis on outcomes, boundaries of relationships, the formality and informality of relationships, the perception of their wisdom and expertise, and the way in which the relationships transform. The similarities include their focus on learning and growth, source of guidance, opportunities for skill development, use of questions as stimulus for extracting input, and the honest feedback that both provide in order to inspire growth. Wren & Vallejo (2009) in support of Isaksen & Noler (2001) argument that balance between mentor and coach is a daily occurrence as well as being realized at different time of the year in accordance with shifts in requirements of teachers and principals. They further add that such balances occur across years; in the first year for example emphasis may be on building relationships and trust but in subsequent years the focus may change to instruction and practices, and then on the development and refinement of those practices and maintaining them into the future. Different institutions adhere to varying models and coaching is perceived in different ways dependant on whether the person is the teacher or the coach. In some instances the principal takes on the role of coach, or a person is assigned to an institution by the regional education department, but in most cases the principal will be responsible for selecting a coach from within their institution. Coaching then, is considered the next logical step in professional development of teachers after they have undertaken a training program or workshop; instead of returning to their classroom after having had a short time learning new ideas and approaches without any further guidance, their professional development is further supported by a coach who provides the opportunity for teachers to better implement, question, receive feedback, and reflect on their teaching in a collaborative way (Showers & Joyce, 1996, cited in Cowie, 2010). The concept of coaching is correlated with different functions such as cognitive, peer, leader, team and collegial coaching, as well as with critical reflection, action learning and research (Cowie, 2010), and coaching and mentoring (Poglinco et al., 2003). At this point it is perhaps applicable to mention different types of coaches as prescribed in relation to their primary focus and task. Discussion above has centered on coaching in terms of teacher support and guidance in order to improve teachers’ teaching strategies within specific subject and thus content areas; this type of coaching is termed ‘content coaching’ (Neufeld & Roper, 2003), ‘instructional coaching’ or ‘content-focused coaching’ (Staub, West & Bickel (2006). This kind of coaching can be correlated with a master craftsman and his/her apprentice, wherein the apprentice is monitored by the master while undertaking specific tasks, and the master provides support and feedback, all the while trying to improve and build on the performance and knowledge of the apprentice (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989, cited in Staub, West & Bickel, 2006, p.2). Another type of coaching is called ‘change coaching’ (Neufeld & Roper, 2003) that involves improvement of the school or institution as a whole; this kind of coaching, as proposed by Robertson & Murrihy, 2005, cited in Cowie, 2010, p. 27), is important to develop because it’s real focus is not just on change in teachers’ skills, attitudes, but on the behavior of the entire institution, and has ‘deep-rooted focus on learning’; such coaching however is not the focus of discussion within this paper. A further distinction is made between coach’s acting within coaching and supervisory roles (Cowie, 2010). (Toll, 2004), who believes that effective coach’s are able to intersect these two distinctions in a subtle way, explains that as coach, they will help teachers to recognize, implement and improve on what they know and do; whereas as supervisor, they will make certain that teachers will meet and sustain their obligation and requisites of their positions as teachers. Cowie (2010) adds to this description of supervisory coaching as being involved with staff evaluation and appraisal, as well as development; whereas coaching is non-judgemental (p.26). The overlap of roles is clarified by Toll (2004) when she states that when coaching, a coach is reacting and responding to the teachers’ needs, principles and opinions, and although as coach he/she provides input in relation to their own perspective on the issues involved, the teachers control and provide input to the discussion; as supervisor however, the coach may actively listen, take heed and value the teachers’ needs, principles and opinions but in this capacity he/she will control the content of the discussion. Research shows that a variety of different features account for the concept of coaching, such as that it necessitates a commitment to the setting and achievement of goals and to professional learning, a focus on practice within the classroom and on collaboration, and the fact that by continual improvement it sustains lifelong learning, and that it is self directed (Cowie, 2010). The basic rationale behind coaching is therefore enlightened by and entrenched in research focused on the provision of an efficient and successful environment for professional development, one that imparts sustained support for teachers and is founded on strong, undeviating and enduring arrangements centered on curriculum and instruction (Poglinco et al, 2003). The notion of coaching thus appears to satisfy the gap within the assortment of policies and approaches provided for the improvement of teachers and their provision of best quality teaching to their students. A framework founded on current research into what constitutes successful professional development was constructed by Supovitz (2001); this framework, according to Poglinco et al, (2003) is an appropriate structure into which coaching comfortable fits. It incorporates teacher assistance to help them relate their teaching to student performance based on standards, the involvement of teachers in experiment and questioning, the provision of prolonged and concentrated teaching tasks related to their student knowledge – thus enlarging their subject knowledge – and linking what teachers do to other facets of institutional change. 3.4 The role of Principals in association with coaching The role of the principal in developing and leading a coaching program is fundamental to its success, and he/she must be able to see the larger image and all its facets if they are to inculcate change and entrench a culture of learning. A district wide study pertaining to literacy coaching found that the principal plays a vital role in the perception of coaches in relation to success (Cramer, 2007). In their consideration and adoption of a coaching program they would be looking for a means to make the most of workshops and professional development programs by improving the teaching practices of teachers. There are three primary concerns for principals in relation to coaching that include whether or not it is a suitable method to use, what can he/she accomplish from using it, and what systems and resources are required for its effectiveness (Cowie, 2010). Knowledge and understanding of the idea of coaching is made opportune to principals by way of workshops and conferences, and appears to be an increasingly accepted tool by principals for necessitated change and development within educational institutions. As mentioned earlier, some coaches are assigned from outside the school but if not the principal needs to be responsible for the selection of the coach, the development of a coaching strategy, and the implementation of effective evaluative systems to determine outcomes of the coaching program (Steiner & Kowal, 2007). In light of the availability of numerous models of coaching systems, the principal will also need to determine the model that will work best within their own school and cultural environment. If on the other hand, the coach is assigned from outside a principal must possess a good understanding of the coach’s role and responsibilities, and a good relationship needs to be maintained between the coach and the principal. Principals also need to support the coach by instilling them within the culture of the institution as valuable and partaking in a leadership position (Cramer, 2007). Campbell (1996, p.468) cited in Salkind (2010, p.57), found that the principal’s support impacted on instructional change provided by mathematics coaches and that in circumstances where principal and coach as well as teachers were collaborating, change in relation to math teaching methods led to improved student outcomes and a more respectful relationship between the teachers and principal. In other circumstances where the principal did not fully realize change efforts although in support of reform in terms of coaching, some teachers disregarded the coach which led to disagreement, conflict and negative outcomes. Some principals include the coach on the school’s leadership board (Taylor, Morely, Canter & Boulware, 2007) so that he/she can come to grasps and be involved in overall school decisions. In schools that achieve the most development and best outcomes in terms of literacy, are those where teachers assume respect and the coach is valued, but it is the principal who must instill these values (Taylor, et al., 2007). From all of these studies it seems the extent to which a principal embraces or not embraces the role of coach is significantly influential in whether he/she was regarded as a ‘valuable resource within the school (Carroll, 2007, cited in Dean, 2010, p.26). 3.5 Effectiveness of coaching Turning now to whether there is evidence that coaching actually increases teaching standards that result in positive outcomes for students, research provides little strong evidence either way. A few earlier studies show that teachers involved within a coaching program develop stronger relationships with other teachers, are more likely to try out new skills and strategies than their non-coached colleagues, are apt to be more reflective on their teaching experiences, and possess a better understanding of the practices they use in teaching (Joyce & Showers (1996); Gamston, Linder & Whitaker (1993); Edwards (1995). There appears to be very few current or thorough studies that have focused on coaching and its effectiveness. Kamil (2006, p.16, cited in Knight & Cornett, 2009, p.2), reiterates this observation and states that ‘at this point, we have absolutely no single piece of evidence that coaching is effective: no published research, no randomized control-style studies’. In answer to this lack of research Knight & Cornett (2009) set out to determine whether coaching ‘has any impact on whether or not teachers implement proven practices that they learn in a professional development workshop’ and whether it has ‘any impact on the quality of teacher implementation of new teaching practices’ (p.2). Their study, based on observation and interviews with fifty middle and high school teachers employed in the U.S, found that those teachers who were coached more often experimented with new teaching strategies and methods than teachers who only attended professional development workshops; teachers who were coached also maintained the use of these new methods when not observed, and are considered as more likely to continue and persevere with these ‘new teaching practices in the future’ (p.16). A very recent in depth study undertaken by Dean (2010) discussed in more detail later in this paper, also provides some evidence in support of the effectiveness in relation to the coaching of reading, but she too makes mention of the lack of ‘extensive research on literacy coaching showing clear links between coaching and student learning’ (p.74). Research on the effectiveness of coaching is thus almost devoid of any exact studies from which we can legitimately claim whether or not it really does satisfy the hole in current policies and approaches on teacher development and improved student outcomes, as mentioned earlier in this paper. 3.6 Coaching from a principal’s perspective Research into the ways in which principals perceive the role of an instructional coach illustrate many different attitudes and perspectives towards what they understand about coaches and how they themselves should be working with them, to whether in fact they believe they are effective at all. According to Wren & Vallejo (2009) a number of principals perceive the role of coach as someone ‘to go forth and teach the teachers how to teach’ (p.4) and that this perception is based on the unfounded assumption that teachers are inept or lacking in some way; they, the principals want and expect the coach to rid the teachers of their inabilities and override them with ‘best practices’. A study conducted by Mraz, Algozzine & Watson (2008) for the purpose of exploring the perceptions of literacy specialists, teachers and principals towards coaching, found that responses provided by survey completion proved similar across all three groups, but within interview differences emerged. Principals proved concern about the understanding of a coach’s role and the activities in which they work, as well as to what degree they can improve the teachers’ teaching methods within literacy; they were aware that within each institution the principal will use the literacy coach in different ways. The majority of principals, in a study conducted by Salkind (2010) of 59 principals, agreed that the role of an instructional coach – this time of mathematics – is primarily concerned with improving the teaching of teachers and not concerned with teaching themselves, and that coaches should include observing and modeling in the classroom. All perceived one role of the coach as that of co-teacher. Principals therefore, as evidenced in Salkind’s (2010) study perceived multiple roles for coaches but that their primary role was as support to teachers within the classroom, a means of change and reform, an expert on instruction and a school leader. A comprehensive study on the perceptions of thirty five elementary school principals from Alabama, in relation to the effectiveness of reading coaches and whether they considered them to be a necessary part of the faculty was carried out by Dean (2010), wherein she also considered differences in perception between male and female principals. Results obtained from a 5 point Lickert scale survey developed in line with the description of reading coach duties as set down by the International Reading Association (IRA), found that overall out of a list of seventeen points, the principals considered the degree of reading knowledge of the school’s reading program as the most important factor in coaching and that the necessity of the reading coach working ‘with struggling readers on a consistent basis’ (p.59) was least important. The responses from principals indicated that with overall mean score of 4.60, they perceived the reading coaches to be effective in their responsibilities (p.59). Interestingly, their study did not find any significant differences between perceptions of reading coaches between male and female principals. 4.0 Conclusion This literature review provides evidence that the educational leadership role has changed considerably over the years and that now more than ever, principals as leaders, have to adapt to those changes. Today there is need for reform as pressure from above is insisting on better teaching practices in the endeavor of raising student academic levels on all fronts. One such mechanism that is being used in the attempt of raising teaching levels is to provide instructional coaches, who are expert within a particular subject area, and who are considered as qualified and expert in assisting and supporting teachers in the classroom. Though the source of research is by no means vigorous in terms of positive outcomes and effectiveness of coaching, there is some and seemingly growing evidence that amidst the uncertainty the adoption of instructional coaching programs does have a positive impact on teachers. Coaches provide ongoing support long after professional development workshops are forgotten and encourage teachers to experiment putting theory into practice. There is also evidence that the principal is a key component of any successful coaching program and that without a healthy relationship between the coach and principal, built on trust and respect, the effectiveness of coaching programs would be lacking. If an instructional coaching program, whatever the model, is to posit positive outcomes then the principal needs to take charge of inculcating an institutional culture augmenting the value of coaching and the coach, in order to ensure acceptance and esteem from teachers towards both. 5.0 Recommendations The review of the literature exhibits a scarcity in research on the effectiveness of coaching in terms of student outcomes, and as this is the primary focus and reason for coaching it is imperative that research be undertaken. In fact, research demonstrates not only a deficit in studies pertaining to the link between coaching and student improved outcomes, but also that in relation to understanding and perceptions of coaching and coaches by principals. As research demonstrates that principals are key constituents in the success of coaching, then it is only feasible for further research to focus on this issue. Although not discussed within this paper a review of literature undertaken specifically for this paper has revealed a need for further investigation, studies and research in a number of areas relating to instructional or content coaching. The following is a summary of recommendations in light of this deficit: 1. Extensive research be undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional coaching on improved student outcomes. 2. Extensive research be undertaken to help understand principals’ and teachers’ understanding and perceptions of the roles of instructional coaches. 3. Extensive research be undertaken to ascertain past experiences between teachers and coaches, and principals and coaches All of these issues are important because as the research suggests, the concept of coaching is becoming more and more popular within educational institutions but the reality is that its validity remains unconfirmed. As its success is attributable to collaboration between coaches, teachers and principals then all three perspectives must be considered and determined with some credence, which can only be accomplished via further and thorough research. References Beachum, F. & Dentith, A. (2004). Teacher leaders Creating Cultures of School Renewal and Transformation. The Educational Forum. Vol. 68 (3), 276+. Retrieved 20 March, 2011 from Questia. Bennis, W. (1989). On Becoming a Leader. New York: Addison Wesley Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1994). Becoming a Teacher Leader: from Isolation to Collaboration. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Christie, P. & Lingard, B. (2001). Capturing Complexity in Educational Leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. 10-14 April. Retrieved 17 March, 2011 from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED461930.pdf. Covery, R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon and Shuster. Cowie, D. (2010). Coaching for Improving Teacher Practice within a Professional Development Initiative. Master Thesis: Unitec Institute of Technology. Retrieved 1 April, 2011 from http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1442. Cramer, J. (2007). Perceptions of the Effects of the relationship with the Building Principal: The Story of Six Literacy Coaches. PhD Thesis. Purdue University, Indiana. Retreived 4 April, 2011 from ProQuest. Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M. & Hann, L. (2002). Developing Teacher Leaders: How Teacher Leadership Enhances School Success. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press. Dean, M. (2010). Principals’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Reading Coaches and the Necessity of Reading Coaches within Elementary Schools. PhD Thesis. Auburn University. Retrieved 4 April,, 2011 from etd.auburn.edu/.../MilandaJacksonDean_Dissertation_final-2-18-10.pdf?...2. Dorval, K., Isaksen, S. & Noller, R. (2001). Leadership for Learning: Tips for effective mentoring and Coaching. In McClusky, K. (ed.) Mentoring for Talent Development. South Dakota, Lennox: Reclaiming Youth. Edwards, J. & Newton, R. (1995). The Effects of Cognitive Coaching on Teacher Efficacy and Empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved 2 April, 2010 from Ebscohost. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. Gamston, R., Linder, C., & Whitaker, J. (1993). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership. Vol. 51(2), 57-61. Retrieved 2 April, 2010 from Ebscohost. Greenfield, W. D. (1987). Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues and Controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hattie, J, (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Retrieved 2 April from http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2003). Student achievement through staff development. In Designing Training and Peer Coaching: our needs for learning, VA, USA, ASCD: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved 2 April, 2011 from Ebschost. Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller G. (2001). Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Knight, J. & Cornett, J. (2009). Studying the Impact of Instructional Coaching. Manuscript. University of Kansas Center of Research on Teaching. Retrieved 1 April, 2011 from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/tools/Studying_the_Impact_of_Instructional_Coachin g_4.0.pdf. Kowalski, T. J. (1995).  Preparing Teachers to be Leaders: Barriers in the Workplace.  In M. O’Hair & O’Dell, S (Eds.), Educating Teachers for Leadership and Change: Teacher Education Yearbook III.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Mayeski, F. & Gaddy, B. (2000). Leadership for School Improvement (Rev. ed.). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Mraz, M., Algozzine, B. & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and Expectations of Roles and Responsibilities of Literacy Coaches. Literacy Research and Instruction. Vol. 47(3), 141-157. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/215486__793495235.pdf. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2010). Teacher Leadership as a Key to Education Innovation (Policy-to Practice Brief) Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 17 March, 2011 from http://www.tqsource.org/pdfs/TQ_Policy-to-PracticeBriefTeacherLeadership.pdf. Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: a Strategy for Developing Instructional Capacity. The Aspen Institute Program on Education, The Annenberg Institute for School Reform: Education Matters Inc. Retrieved 1 April, 2011 from http://www.edmatters.org/webreports/CoachingPaperfinal.pdf Patterson, J. & Patterson, J. (2004). Sharing the Lead. Education Leadership, Vol.61 (7), 74-78. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200404_patterson.pdf. Poglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M. & Supovitz, J. (2003). The Heart of the Matter: The Coaching Model in America’s Choice Schools. Consortium for Policy Research in Education University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. Retrieved 1 April, 2010 from Ebscohost. Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching Leadership: Building Educational Leadership Capacity Through Coaching Partnerships. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Salkind, G. (2010). Coaches’ and Principals’ Conceptualizations of the Roles of Elementary Mathematics Coaches. PhD Thesis. George Mason University. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from http://mars.gmu.edu:8080/bitstream/1920/6001/1/salkind_2010_dissertationl.pdf. Sergiovanni, & Starratt, (1998). Supervision: A Redefinition, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996a). The Evolution of Peer Coaching. Educational Leadership, Vol. 53(6), 12+. Retrieved 1 April, 2011 from http://www.eggplant.org/pamphlets/pdf/joyce_showers_peer_coaching.pdf. Sledge J.R. & Morehead P. (2006). Tolerated Failure or Missed Opportunities and Potentials for Teacher Leadership in Urban Schools? Current Issues in Education [On-line], Vol. 9(3). Retrieved 19 March, 2011 from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume9/number3/.. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principles, Oxford: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from http://www.learningforward.org/news/sparksbook/part_three.pdf. Staub, C., West, L. & Bickel, D. (2006). What is Content-Focused Coaching?. Chapter 1. Used with permission at the Coaching Institute for Literacy and Numeracy Leaders, August. Retrieved 2 April, 2010 from Ebscohost. Steiner, L. & Kowal, J. (2007). Issue brief: Principal as Instructional Leader: Designing a Coaching Program that Fits. Washington, D.C. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieve 4 April, 2011 from www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept07Principal.pdf. Supovitz, J. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student achievement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards based reform in the states (pp. 81-98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Suskavcevic, M. & Blake, S. (2001). Principals’ Leadership and Student Achievement: An Examination of the TMSS 1999. Retrieved 18 March, 2011 from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC2004/Suskavcevic_Blake.pdf. Taylor, R., Moxley, D., Chanter, C. & Boulware, D. (2007). Three Techniques for Successful Literacy Coaching. Principal Leadership. Vol. 7(6), 22-25. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from https://literacyleads.wikispaces.com/.../Three+Techniques+of+Successful+Literacy+Coaching.pdf. Terry, P. (n.d.). Empowering teachers as Leaders. [On-line] Retrieved 17 march, 2011 from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Terry,%20paul%20M.%20Empowering%20Teachers%20As%20Leaders.pdf. Toll, A. (2004) Separating Coaching from Supervising. English Leadership Quarterly. October, p.1-7. Retrieved 2 April, 2011 from http://www.tollandassociates.com/downloads/articles/Separating_Coaching_from_Superv ising.pdf. Wasley, P. (1991). Teachers Who Head: the Rhetoric of Reform and the Realities of Practice, New York: Teachers College Press. Wren, S. & Vallejo, D. (2009). Effective Collaboration between Instructional Coaches and Principals. Principal & Coach Collaboration. Retrieved 4 April, 2011 from www.balancedreading.com/Wren_&_Vallejo_Coach_Principal_Relatinships.pdf. York-Barr, J. & Duke, K. (2004).What do we know about Teacher Leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship.Review of Educational Research 74(3), 255–316. Retrieved 19 March, 2011 from http://rer.sagepub.com/content/74/3/255.short. Read More