Coaching

Abstract: In this chapter the authors explain how they have developed and refined their vision for training as the means by which new knowledge is added to the teacher’s professional repertoire. They suggest that over the years since they first advocated coaching as an essential ingredient in using new knowledge to change practice in the early 1980s, training designs have come to distinguish more effectively between awareness-raising as a training objective, and behaviour change. They argue that learning how to learn is just as important for teacher professional development as the acquisition of new knowledge and skills; and they explore a model of coaching in which joint planning and resource development, together with mutual observation and learning from each other are the key elements.

Abstract: Prologue I. The Mental Demand of Adolescence 1. The Hidden Curriculum of Youth: "Whaddaya Want from Me?" 2. Coaching the Curriculum: A Bridge Must Be Well Anchored on Either Side II. The Mental Demand of Private Life: Parenting and Partnering 3. Parenting: Minding Our Children 4. Partnering: Love and Consciousness III. The Mental Demand of Public Life: Work and Self-Expansion 5. Working: On Seeking to Hire the Self-Employed 6. Dealing with Difference: Communication between the Sexes/Communication between the Theories 7. Healing: The Undiscussed Demands of Psychotherapy 8. Learning: "The Teacher Wants Us to Be Self-Directing" IV. The Mental Demand of Postmodern Life 9. Conflict, Leadership, and Knowledge Creation 10. On Being Good Company for the Wrong Journey Epilogue Notes Index

Abstract: The vision of practice that underlies the nation's reform agenda requires most teachers to rethink their own practice, to construct new classroom roles and expectations about student outcomes, and to teach in ways they have never taught before--and probably never experienced as students (Nelson and Hammerman 1996). The success of this agenda ultimately turns on teachers' success in accomplishing the serious and difficult tasks of learning the skills and perspectives assumed by new visions of practice and unlearning the practices and beliefs about students and instruction that have dominated their professional lives to date. Yet few occasions and little support for such professional development exist in teachers' environments. Because teaching for understanding relies on teachers' abilities to see complex subject matter from the perspectives of diverse students, the know-how necessary to make this vision of practice a reality cannot be prepackaged or conveyed by means of traditional top-down "teacher training" strategies. The policy problem for professional development in this era of reform extends beyond mere support for teachers' acquisition of new skills or knowledge. Professional development today also means providing occasions for teachers to reflect critically on their practice and to fashion new knowledge and beliefs about content, pedagogy, and learners (Nelson and Hammerman 1996; Prawat 1992). Beginning with preservice education and continuing throughout a teacher's career, teacher development must focus on deepening teachers' understanding of the processes of teaching and learning and of the students they teach. Effective professional development involves teachers both as learners and as teachers and allows them to struggle with the uncertainties that accompany each role. It has a number of characteristics. * It must engage teachers in concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection that illuminate the processes of learning and development. * It must be grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that are participant-driven. * It must be collaborative, involving a sharing of knowledge among educators and a focus on teachers' communities of practice rather than on individual teachers. * It must be connected to and derived from teachers' work with their students. * It must be sustained, ongoing, intensive, and supported by modeling, coaching, and the collective solving of specific problems of practice. * It must be connected to other aspects of school change. Professional development of this kind signals a departure from old norms and models of "preservice" or "inservice" training. It creates new images of what, when, and how teachers learn, and these new images require a corresponding shift from policies that seek to control or direct the work of teachers to strategies intended to develop schools' and teachers' capacity to be responsible for student learning. Capacity- building policies view knowledge as constructed by and with practitioners for use in their own contexts, rather than as something conveyed by policy makers as a single solution for top-down implementation. Though the outlines of a new paradigm for professional development policy are emerging (Cohn, McLaughlin, and Talbert 1993; Darling-Hammond 1993), the hard work of developing concrete exemplars of the policies and practices that model "top-down support for bottom-up reform" has only just begun. The changed curriculum and pedagogy of professional development will require new policies that foster new structures and institutional arrangements for teachers' learning. At the same time, we will need to undertake a strategic assessment of existing policies to determine to what degree they are compatible with the vision of learning as constructed by teachers and students and with a vision of professional development as a lifelong, inquiry-based, and collegial activity (Lieberman 1995). …

Abstract: This paper examines learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Research on team effectiveness has focused primarily on single-discipline teams engaged in routine production tasks and, less often, on interdisciplinary teams engaged in discussion and management rather than action. The resulting models do not explain differences in learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Members of these teams must coordinate action in uncertain, fast-paced situations, and the extent to which they are comfortable speaking up with observations, questions, and concerns may critically influence team outcomes. To explore what leaders of action teams do to promote speaking up and other proactive coordination behaviours – as well as how organizational context may affect these team processes and outcomes – I analysed qualitative and quantitative data from 16 operating room teams learning to use a new technology for cardiac surgery. Team leader coaching, ease of speaking up, and boundary spanning were associated with successful technology implementation. The most effective leaders helped teams learn by communicating a motivating rationale for change and by minimizing concerns about power and status differences to promote speaking up in the service of learning.