LSC Reference Materials

NOTES

Summary of the Case

Gina Caruso and Pat Brown, two third-grade teachers at Jefferson Elementary School, have teamed up to teach a hands-on, inquiry-based science unit on habitats. Pat is new to teaching this unit, and new to this type of teaching. Gina had used similar units in her classroom for the last couple of years. Gina and Pat have worked together on the previous unit, where Gina taught the unit, and Pat assisted and observed. With the habitats unit, their roles are reversed.

As the case opens, Gina is observing Pat teach a lesson in which the children are building terrariums. Although the children are engaged, the lesson raises concerns for Gina. She feels that Pat has over-directed the lesson, providing children with information about what should be in a terrarium, rather than engaging them in thinking about the science of the lesson, namely, the elements of a habitat that will allow living creatures to survive.

In the second scene, we see Gina in a brief interaction with Jefferson's principal, Maureen Hart. Gina expresses to Maureen her concerns about whether she has the expertise to be guiding Pat. Maureen offers Gina reassurances about her expertise and expresses her confidence in Gina.

In the final scene, Gina and Pat meet after school to talk. Gina makes indirect suggestions to Pat about improvements in that day's lesson, and in subsequent lessons. Pat presses Gina to tell her how the unit is going. Gina is unsure how to respond: On the one hand, she feels that Pat needs to make several improvements in her teaching of the unit, and on the other hand, she does not want to discourage Pat.

Major Themes

The case focuses on a coaching relationship between Pat and Gina, in which Gina is in the role of coach, observing Pat and offering feedback based on her observations. The case addresses a variety of perspectives on coaching, offers a dilemma about communicating feedback in a coaching context, and raises the question of how to create an effective coaching relationship.

In particular, the case offers the opportunity to explore the following dichotomies:

• Expertise vs. inquiry. To what extent is a coach someone who shares his or her own knowledge and extensive expertise? To what extent should a coach insist that others discover ideas for themselves? What is the balance between the two approaches?

• Isolation vs. Collegiality. The norms in traditional schools dictate that teachers do not offer feedback to each other unless specifically requested by another person. In fact, teachers often have very limited experience seeing one another teach because they tend to be isolated in their individual classrooms. An alternative relationship among teachers might mean that a coach offering constructive feedback is viewed as part of what colleagues do for one another as professionals.

• Egalitarianism vs. leadership. When a teacher is acting in the position of coach, taking on the responsibility of working with another teacher to be reflective about practice and offering his or her perspective to that teacher, this activity can be perceived as going against norms of egalitarianism. A school culture in which every teacher is on equal footing with every other teacher, and there is no differentiation in terms of ability or experience, is at odds with a school culture that supports teacher leadership

Summary of Discussion Activities

This guide offers four activities to support discussion of the case. They are meant as suggested activities only. Facilitators should feel free to add or delete activities, adapt them to suit their own purposes, or reorder the activities to fit the needs of the group they will be working with. As presented here, the activities are structured to focus first on the data of the case itself, and then to move beyond the story line of the case to consider next steps for the characters as well as larger issues concerning coaching.

The four activities are as follows:

• Getting Started. A large-group discussion of the range and variety of the issues contained in the case.

• Understanding Perspectives. A small- and large-group activity designed to focus discussion on understanding and analyzing different perspectives on a coaching relationship between two colleagues.

• Communicating Feedback. A small- and large-group activity designed to look specifically at the final scene of the case, analyzing the communication between Pat and Gina, and looking at the relative effectiveness of several possible responses to Gina's dilemma at the end of the case.

• Considering Ground Rules. A paired role-play activity in which participants step away from the story line of the case to take on the roles of Pat and Gina in order to consider the ground rules for a successful coaching relationship.

Getting Started

This initial discussion activity is intended to support participants in developing a common understanding of the range and variety of issues in the case. Discussion in this section encourages participants to articulate problems and issues in the case.

Large-group discussion (10-15 minutes)

It is preferable to conduct this initial discussion in a large group setting, in order to foster a common understanding among participants about the issues described by the case. Some useful discussion questions:

• Can someone give a brief description of what happened in the case?
• Can someone else add to that description?
• What is the main problem in the case? Whose problem is it?
• What are the other problems in the case? Whose problems are they?
• What are the key issues raised by the case?

Understanding Perspectives

Each of the adult characters in the case (Gina, Pat, and Maureen) has a perspective on coaching relationships: a set of beliefs or mindsets about coaching relationships between professional colleagues, about both what it means to be a coach and what it means to be coached. Likewise, participants in the case discussion will also have beliefs or mindsets about Gina and Pat's coaching relationship, as well as about coaching relationships more generally. The following set of activities focuses first on understanding the perspectives on coaching represented by the characters in the case, and then moves away from the story line and asks participants to reflect on their own experiences and beliefs with regard to professional coaching relationships.

The case provides the most data on Gina's views about coaching as she struggles to define her coaching relationship with Pat. Ask participants to work in small groups, identifying Gina's concerns and beliefs about coaching. Helpful discussion questions include the following:

• What does Gina believe her role is as coach to Pat? What evidence of those beliefs exists in the case?
• What adjectives would you use to describe Gina's approach to her role as coach to Pat?
• What are Gina's concerns about her coaching relationship with Pat?

Pat's perspective (20-30 minutes)

In contrast with Gina, much of Pat's perspective on the coaching relationship is implicit in the case text. Ask participants to work in small groups on the following questions:

• What does Pat believe Gina's role as her coach is? What evidence is there in the case of these beliefs?
• What adjectives would you use to describe Pat's view of being coached by Gina?
• What are Pat's concerns about the coaching relationship?

Maureen's perspective (20-30 minutes)

In the case text, Maureen's perspective on coaching is represented in two ways: Her view of Gina's coaching of Pat and in Maureen's coaching of Gina. Ask participants, again working in small groups, to consider Maureen's perspective.

• Put yourself in Maureen's place, looking at the coaching relationship between Gina and Pat. What are Maureen's beliefs about the coaching relationship? What evidence of those beliefs exists in the case?
• Now put yourself in Maureen's place, working with Gina. Do you think Maureen was a coach to Gina? If so, what adjectives would you use to describe her approach to coaching Gina?

• How could Maureen best support Gina in acting as a coach to Pat?

At the beginning of this activity, alert participants that you are now switching the focus of the discussion to their own beliefs about coaching. Ask participants to consider the following questions in individual reflective writing:

1. In this situation, imagine yourself as Gina. What would you be thinking or feeling about your coaching relationship with Pat? What would your intention or goal be in coaching Pat?

2. Have you ever been coached by a colleague? What did that colleague say to you? What was his or her intention? What did that feel like to you? How did it support your learning?

3. Reflect on an experience in which you acted as a coach, or imagine a situation in which you could possibly be a coach. What is that situation?

4. Look back over your responses to questions 1-3. How would you characterize your own beliefs and expectations about coaching a colleague?

This response provides Pat with concrete data about Gina's concern, and the impact she sees on students' learning. It allows Gina to share her feeling of concern without making judgments. On the other hand, the response does not offer any information on how Gina feels Pat is doing overall, and could perhaps be improved with some additional information that would "frame" the concern or put it in context (e.g., "Pat, I want to reassure you that things are going very well overall. I do have some concerns I would like to share with you...").

Communicating Feedback

The central dilemma in the case relates to Gina and Pat's communication--in particular, whether and how Gina chooses to communicate feedback to Pat. This set of discussion activities focuses explicitly on the communication between Gina and Pat in the last scene of the case. The first two activities offer a small-group analysis of the communication in the last scene and a large-group consideration of Gina's effectiveness in both listening and asserting her own perspective in that scene. This conversation should result in an understanding among participants about what was effective in the communication overall and what could have been made more effective. The third activity offers an opportunity to analyze three possible responses Gina could make to Pat's final question, using the conversation about effectiveness as criteria for analyzing the responses. The last activity invites participants to respond to the question Pat poses at the end of the case.

Small-group discussion (20-30 minutes)

Ask participants to return to the case and reread the last scene. Working in small groups, ask them to consider the following:

• What are the strengths of the communication between Gina and Pat?

• What are the weaknesses of the conversation?

• What is Gina's approach to the conversation with Pat?

• What suggestions would you make to Gina in terms of changing that approach?

Ask participants to share their small group discussions with the entire group by identifying one strength, one weakness, and one suggestion for Gina.

Gina has a role in the final scene both in communicating her feedback to Pat and in listening to Pat's experience and concerns. Ask participants to consider Gina's effectiveness in both of these roles. First ask participants to consider Gina's role as a listener in the conversation:

• How effective is Gina as a listener in the conversation?

• What evidence in the case demonstrates Gina's effectiveness as a listener?

• How effective is Gina in communicating her feedback to Pat?

• What evidence in the case demonstrates her effectiveness?

Direct participants' attention to Gina's dilemma at the end of the case. Pat asks, "What are you trying to say, Gina? I don't get where you're coming from. On the one hand, you say I'm doing fine, but on the other hand, it sounds like you don't think it's going so well. What do you really think about how it's going?"

Below are several possible responses Gina could make to Pat. Share these responses with the large group, one at a time, on overhead transparencies.

"Truthfully, Pat, I don't think it's going very well. You're not really doing inquiry-based science."

"Pat, I think you're doing a terrific job, especially given that this is the first kit that you've taught. There's always room for improvement -- I know there is in my science classes -- but you are on the right track."

"I am concerned about the worksheet you used today. My concern is that it provided too much structure for the students. The terrarium activity was hands-on but it didn't require the kids to do enough thinking about what ought to be in the terrarium and why. I don't think they learned very much about habitats from the activity."

• What are the strengths of this response?

• What are the weaknesses of this response?

• How would you expect Pat to respond next?

An extension (20-30 minutes)

To extend this activity, ask participants to work in pairs to craft their own responses to Pat's question. Have several participants copy their responses onto overhead transparencies for sharing with the rest of the group. Analyze their responses using the questions above.

Considering Ground Rules

This activity addresses some aspects of Gina's "coaching" dilemma, namely, unclear expectations about what kinds of feedback will be offered, when it will be offered, and whether it will be considered and used. Participants are asked to consider what procedures or ground rules Gina and Pat should have established prior to any classroom observations or work together.

Large-group discussion (15 minutes)

The idea of establishing ground rules is likely to have come up in discussion, even in the less formal "maybe they should have figured out how to do this before they got to this point" kind of comment. This activity is intended to address that issue specifically. If it has come up, you can return to the issue by saying something like, "I'd like us to return to the issue of what Pat and Gina could have done ahead of time to prevent this situation and spend some time discussing that in detail."

Ask participants to consider this question:

• What could Pat and Gina have done before Pat started teaching the unit to prepare for giving and receiving feedback?

Role play (30 minutes)

This next activity asks participants to role-play a conversation between Pat and Gina as they set ground rules for feedback.

Remind them of the earlier discussion of Pat's and Gina's concerns as they give feedback in the conversation.

Have participants work in pairs. One person takes the role of Gina; the other person plays Pat. Participants are to role-play a conversation between Pat and Gina in which they talk about how the coaching relationships will proceed, before they begin co-teaching the science units.

Before they begin the role play, remind participants of the earlier discussion of Pat's and Gina's concerns. Have each participant reflect silently in writing about this question:

• What do you think are your character's (Pat's or Gina's) three most important concerns about the coaching relationship?

In reporting out to the large group, have each pair present their approach and how they arrived at that approach. Ask the group to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approach:

• How will it support Gina in giving feedback?

• How will it support Pat in receiving and learning from feedback?

• What are the risks in the strategy for Gina or for Pat?

A Note about Peer Coaching Training

This case discussion is intended to raise issues about coaching as a leadership role. The activities in this guide are not intended to represent the body of knowledge about peer coaching, nor should they serve as a substitute for formal peer-coaching training. We believe that the case complements professional development experiences related specifically to development of peer-coaching skills.