MENTORING IN EDUCATION 1

Analysis of Qualitative Research:

Mentoring Inside the Action of Teaching: Induction Coaches’ Perspectives and Practices

Cindy Dick

Brandon University

881649

07:751 Interpreting Educational Research

Professor Terry

February 15, 2017

TEACHER MENTORING 2

MARKS SHEET

/6 APA

# errors @ ¼ mark off

/20 CONTENT ( /40 x ½)

/6 = previous assignment = /30 divided by 5

/2 = setting (/1 = where, /1 = when)

/3 = subjects (/1 = population, /1 = sample, /1 = selection)

/2 = data collection instruments

/2 = data collection procedure

/2 = data analysis

/4 = research results (/3 = what happened, /1 = how reported)

/4 = discussion (/2 = relation to literature, /2 = relation to prior studies)

/3 = conclusions (relation to research questions and sub-questions or objectives)

/2 = recommendations for practice

/2 = recommendations for future research

/8 = strengths and weaknesses

/4 WRITING SKILLS

4/4 = <2.5 errors per page

3/4 = 2.5 to 4.9 errors per page

2/4 = 5.0 to 7.4 errors per page

1/4 = 7.5 to 9.9 errors per page

0/4 = 10+ errors per page

/30 TOTAL

TEACHER MENTORING 3

Analysis of Qualitative Research:

Teacher Mentoring

Gardiner, W. & Weisling, N. (2015). Mentoring ‘inside’ the action of teaching: induction

coaches’ perspectives and practices. Professional Development in Education. 42(5),

671-686. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2015.1084645 Retrieved from Taylor & Francis

Online database.

Type of Source

• journal article

• online PDF

Access

• retrieved as a linked full text from ERIC database to Taylor & Francis Online database

• url= http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19415257.2015.1084645

Abstract

• research problem:

o Mentoring can be described as practices that are “inside’ and outside the action of

teaching” (p. 671). Some coaches state that ‘inside’ coaching can assist in “accel-

erating new teachers” (p. 671). There is a “complex decision making process”

that motivates coaches to use particular methods on the use of ‘inside’ practices

(p. 671).

• research method:

TEACHER MENTORING 4

o setting = high need elementary schools in United States

o participants = n/a However later in the articles it was stated participants were 23

coaches (p. 674)

o data collection = n/a However, later in the article it is stated that this is a qualita-

tive study was held during 2013/14 school year and included interviews, observa-

tions and coaching documents (p. 674).

• research results (findings): n/a

o The research findings were not included in the abstract, however, the following

was found later in the article;

o stepping in occurred in every classroom (p. 676)

o co-teaching occurred infrequently (p. 677)

o demonstrating teaching occurred only after ‘outside’ practices (p. 679)

o follow-up with teachers was necessary for ‘inside’ practices to be effective (p.

681)

o developing a relationship with the teacher was essential (p. 682)

o many factors went into the decisions of coaches intervention and support espe-

cially authority and credibility (p. 683)

Introduction

• research context or background:

o where and when = The research occurred in 10 high need urban K-8 schools in

Midwestern city in the United States in 2013/14 (p. 672)

o why the research occurred there at that time = Mentoring has large variance in the

success especially in high need schools (p. 671). The ‘inside’ aspect of coaching

TEACHER MENTORING 5

has many benefits that need to be proven with research on their effectiveness (p.

671).

• researcher’s stakeholder position:

o how the researcher fit into the research context = n/a

• research significance or rationale:

o why the research was important = The research was important to guide coaches

on the most effective practices to use with teachers (p. 672).

o anticipated effects on practice = n/a

o anticipated effects on the literature = n/a

Literature Review

• 3 specific references to prior research studies (pp. 672)

• Karos & Moore-Johnson (2008), Wei et al. (2010), Bullough (2012)

Research Question(s)

o “Which, if any, ‘inside’ practices did coaches employ; what facilities and inhibits

coaches use of ‘inside’ practices, and what do coaches perceive are the benefits

and limitations of employing ‘inside’ practices” (p. 672)?

• sub-questions:

o What methods of ‘inside’ practices are most effective with new teachers (p. 672)?

Type of Research

• field research:

o occurred in real classrooms with teachers and students (p. 673)

• qualitative:

o Data was collected by interviews that were individual, and structured (p. 674).

TEACHER MENTORING 6

o The research included observations and documented analysis (p. 675).

• action research: No because it didn’t meet the criteria.

o The research was not cyclical because the research was conducted over a one year

period and not repeated (p. 675).

o The researchers did not belong to the research setting because the interviews

were only conducted as part of the research and not their regular practice (p. 675).

o The researchers did not try to solve a problem. The researchers tried to clarify the

problems instead by explaining the complex dynamics of the relationships be-

tween the coach and the teacher including quotes from interviews (p. 681).

List of References

• 29 sources altogether

• types of sources (and number in each category):

o 17 journal articles

o 11 books

o 1 website

• age of sources (and number in each category):

o 1 source with no date

o 3 sources up to 5 years old

o 7 sources 6-10 years old

o 18 sources over 10 years old

Setting

• where

o in schools where the “full release induction mentors” worked (p. 672).

TEACHER MENTORING 7

o “across 10 high-need, urban K-8 schools in a Midwestern city in the United

States”(p. 672).

• when

o The data was collected in 2013/14 school year (p. 674).

Participants

• research population

o 23 female teacher coaches with up to six years of coaching experience in United

States (p. 674).

• sample

o The coaches consisted of 12 first year and 11 with one to six years of coaching

experience (p. 674)

o coaches were female between the ages of 28 and 36 years old (p. 674)

o “Each coach traveled between two and four schools and supported 12-14 first year

and second-year teachers” (p. 674).

• selection

o selection was non-random and purposeful

o coaches with at least one full year of coaching experience were recruited (p. 674)

o The selection was non-random and purposeful because the researchers chose spe-

cific participants previous studies indicated that limits could be contributed to the

limited experience of the mentors (p. 674).

o “Of the 11 experienced coaches, six volunteered" (p. 674)

o The sampling was “typical” because the researchers chose participants whom they

thought would be similar to others in the research population.

TEACHER MENTORING 8

Data Collection Instruments

• structured interviews for 45-60 minutes (p. 674)

• Interviews were transcribed and given to the participants (p. 674).

Data Collection Procedure

• Participants participated in three structured interviews for 45-60 minutes each that ques-

tioned them on the factors of coaching (p. 674).

• Researchers “conducted observations and document analysis to gain a more comprehen-

sive picture of coaches’ practices” (p. 675).

• All participants were verbally interviewed and the interviews transcribed and given to the

participants (p. 674).

• The interview questions were revised after the interview transcripts were analyzed (p.

675).

Data Analysis

• A matrix was created after each interview cycle that included categories ‘stepping-in, co-

teaching and demonstration teaching’ (p. 675).

• The data was “reduced” and researchers developed a ‘meta-matrix’ (p. 675).

• Researchers focused on ‘inside’ practices in the three interviews and analyzed each coach

in order to look for “patterns of meaning” (p. 676).

• The material from the interviews were coded into categories and compared (p. 675).

• The researchers individually coded the results then met to discuss the codes in order to

“come to a consensus on terms and their meaning” (p. 675).

TEACHER MENTORING 9

• The researchers reviewed coaching logs and agendas (p. 675).

Research Findings

• The researchers' results broke down the data into three categories; stepping-in, co-teach-

ing, and demonstration teaching (p. 676).

• Researchers found that the interview data and the coaching logs showed that all of the

coaches “stepped-in in every classroom” (p. 676).

• Stepping-in was considered a “in-the-moment assistance” provided for the teachers by

the coaches with varying cues that the coaches used (p. 676).

• Stepping-in was most effective “when it aligned with the new teachers’ goals” (p. 677).

• “Five out of the six coaches indicated that stepping-in should be, ‘the last resort’ and as a

result the focus then shifted to “instructionally oriented” (p. 677).

• “Interviews and coaching logs indicate that co-teaching occurred but infrequently” (p.

677).

• The coaches would only co-teach if there were multiple supports in place and other

strategies to help the new teachers with their goals (p. 678).

• Co-teaching had a range of benefits and pitfalls with “four of the five coaches who co-

taught were conflicted about implementing this ‘inside’ practice” (p. 678).

• “Five of the six coaches reported doing some amount of demonstration teaching” (p.

679).

• Demonstration teaching had varied responses from teachers that were dependent on

“transfer” affect, credibility and relationship with the new teachers (p. 680).

TEACHER MENTORING 10

o “Four coaches stated that a concern pertaining to demonstrating teacher was that

the new teacher might view the experience as a break, rather than a means to im-

prove practice” (p. 680).

o “Conversely, the other five coaches believed demonstration teaching could foster

successful transfer” (p. 680).

Discussion

• relation of the results to the literature

o The relationships with the teachers affects the success of the mentoring according

to research findings (John-Steiner 2000, Gardiner 2012) (p. 682).

o Coaches that hesitate to provide ‘inside’ practices are supported by research

(Britzman 2003, City et al. 2009) that states “autonomy, individuality, expertise

and learning by trial and error” are opposite to the strategies used by coaches (p.

683).

o According to research, (Smith and Ingersoll 2004, Youngs 2007, Bay and Parker-

Katz 2009) coaches need to have an understanding of the grade level and subject

level in order to have a positive affect (p. 684).

o relation of the results to prior studies

Conclusions

Note – There is no separate “Conclusions” section in the article. The following conclu-

sions are therefore taken from the “Discussion” section.

• relation of the results to the research questions

o What ‘inside’ practices did the coaches employ?

TEACHER MENTORING 11

▪ All coaches used stepping-in and five out of six coaches co-taught and

demonstration taught in some classrooms (p. 681).

o What were some of the benefits and limitations that the coaches experienced?

▪ A benefit was using modelling for new teachers (p. 681).

▪ Another benefit was encouraging new teachers to “take risks” and im-

prove their practice (p. 681)

▪ Follow-up with new teachers was an important strategy for coaches to

use (p. 682).

▪ Coaches indicated that co-teaching and demonstrating teaching had a

negative impact on the relationship with the new teachers (p. 682).

▪ The limited knowledge of content and grade level was a negative fac-

tor for the coaches (p. 682).

▪ “Coaches stated that relationships with students were a significant fac-

tor in determining when or when not to demonstration teach” (p. 682).

o relation of the results to the research sub-questions What inside practices are

most effective?

▪ Coaches indicated that many of the inside practices were not effective

and even described them as a “high risk” (p. 683).

▪ Outside practices, like “data collection during observations, co-plan-

ning, peer observations and video analysis” were more effective than

inside practices (p. 683).

Recommendations for Practice

TEACHER MENTORING 12

• Coaching programs need to “identify the benefits and potential limitation of ‘inside’

practices (p. 684).

• Inside practices need to have professional development for the coaches in order to be

successful (p. 684).

• Demonstration teaching and co-teaching need to be part of a coaches’ role without the

fear of “losing credibility” but rather an opportunity to model “the reflection process

of thinking carefully about what does well (or not)” (p. 684).

Recommendations for Future Research

• Additional studies should be conducted to reveal that ‘inside’ practices are not

avoided because of the years of experience of a coach (p. 684).

• As well, “identifying specific supports to build coaches capacity ” should be con-

ducted to “enact a broader range of practices” (p. 684).

Strengths of the Research Article or Report

• participants

o The 23 coaches had experience teaching in “high-need, high poverty schools”

(p. 674)

o 11 of the coaches were experienced and 6 of the coaches volunteered (p. 674).

o All of the coaches worked with either first or second year teachers (p. 674).

• data analysis

o The data collected was over an entire school year period (p. 674).

o The interviews were transcribed and returned to the teachers before the next

interview allowing for reflection and growth (p. 675).

TEACHER MENTORING 13

o Researchers also included observations along with the interviews and data

analysis (p. 675).

o Researchers analyzed the data several times and discussed the trends with

each other (p. 675).

• credibility

o Researchers analyzed the transcripts after each cycle and “member checks

were conducted to increase credibility” (p. 675). The member checks helped

revise the questions for the next round in order to improve the teachers’ skills.

• research findings

o Researchers developed a matrix of the skills and strategies that were targeted

and this helped the reader make sense of the data (p. 674).

o The analysis of the data also included coaching logs and agenda in order to

gather relevant information for the study (p. 675).

Weaknesses of the Research Article or Report

• participants

o The researchers could have used coaches that had already been trained in adult

learning theory, coaching techniques and knowledge of the curriculum and

pedagogy at elementary level. This may have eliminated the problem with

coaches worried about “losing credibility” when co-teaching or demonstrating

teaching (p. 684).

• data collection instruments

o The interviews and observations were adequate information gathering instru-

ments; however, the art of teaching is complex and the act of coaching is also

TEACHER MENTORING 14

varied, situation dependent and relies on experience and in the moment deci-

sions on the part of the coach. Data could have been collected using more

tools and targeted other specific teaching strategies.

• data collection procedure

o The data collection procedure may have occurred over a longer period of time.

As the researchers indicated, developing a relationship was essential in order

to have an impact on the teachers, therefore more time would have been nec-

essary.

• recommendations for practice

o Coaches should be trained in the many facets of how adults learn and how stu-

dents learn and then work with teachers as a mentor in order to develop teacher

goals and strategies for support over a sustained period of years.

• recommendations for future research

o The article refers to Gardiner’s hypothesis that years of experience as a coach do

not affect the implementation of ‘inside’ practices. Further research could be

done in this area to prove its relevancy (p. 684).

o Research should be done to show the effects that professional development has on

coaches and new teachers’ effectiveness.