Muddy Waters: The Micropolitics of Instructional Coaches’ Work in Evaluation

IF 2 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sarah Galey-Horn, Sarah L. Woulfin
{"title":"Muddy Waters: The Micropolitics of Instructional Coaches’ Work in Evaluation","authors":"Sarah Galey-Horn, Sarah L. Woulfin","doi":"10.1086/713827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Instructional coaching has emerged as a popular policy lever for improvement efforts in an era of teacher evaluation. In this environment, coaches often face conflicting demands between their educative duties to develop teachers and their reform-oriented responsibilities to implement district policy. Coaches can wield facets of teacher evaluation to promote coherent instructional improvement. Drawing on interview data from 41 coaches across five educational systems, we apply the micropolitics perspective to examine coaches’ work as they navigate the intersection of teacher evaluation and instructional improvement. Our findings elucidate two major micropolitical strategies: convergence and divergence. In particular, coaches frequently converged their work with evaluation around goal setting and observation feedback, facilitating teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of the evaluation system and instructional reform. Conversely, coaches tended to separate issues of teachers’ formal ratings from their coaching. Our analysis reveals details on coaches’ political role and illuminates benefits and limitations of coaches’ involvement in evaluation.","PeriodicalId":47629,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Education","volume":"127 1","pages":"441 - 470"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/713827","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/713827","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Instructional coaching has emerged as a popular policy lever for improvement efforts in an era of teacher evaluation. In this environment, coaches often face conflicting demands between their educative duties to develop teachers and their reform-oriented responsibilities to implement district policy. Coaches can wield facets of teacher evaluation to promote coherent instructional improvement. Drawing on interview data from 41 coaches across five educational systems, we apply the micropolitics perspective to examine coaches’ work as they navigate the intersection of teacher evaluation and instructional improvement. Our findings elucidate two major micropolitical strategies: convergence and divergence. In particular, coaches frequently converged their work with evaluation around goal setting and observation feedback, facilitating teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of the evaluation system and instructional reform. Conversely, coaches tended to separate issues of teachers’ formal ratings from their coaching. Our analysis reveals details on coaches’ political role and illuminates benefits and limitations of coaches’ involvement in evaluation.
浑水:教学教练评价工作的微观政治
在教师评估时代,教学辅导已成为一种流行的改进措施。在这种环境下,教练们经常面临着培养教师的教育职责和实施地区政策的改革导向职责之间的矛盾要求。教练可以运用教师评价的各个方面来促进连贯的教学改进。根据来自五个教育系统的41名教练的访谈数据,我们应用微观政治学的视角来考察教练在教师评估和教学改进的交叉点上的工作。我们的研究结果阐明了两种主要的微观政治策略:趋同和分歧。特别是,教练经常将他们的工作与评估结合起来,围绕目标设定和观察反馈,促进教师和管理人员对评估系统和教学改革的理解。相反,教练倾向于将教师的正式评分问题与他们的指导分开。我们的分析揭示了教练政治角色的细节,并阐明了教练参与评估的好处和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Education
American Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Founded as School Review in 1893, the American Journal of Education acquired its present name in November 1979. The Journal seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship, and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and practitioners. To achieve that goal, papers are published that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信