Amesbury School (TLIF 5-010) - Developing coaching leadership with primary school students Publications
Publication Details
Project Reference: Amesbury School (TLIF 5-010) - In an earlier TLIF project (TLIF 2-036) spanning 2016–2018, Amesbury School used a coaching approach to support the development of the school’s middle leaders.
Author(s): (Inquiry Team) led by Ursula Cunningham and Demelza Murrihy-Topp
Date Published: February 2019
Overview
The project grew teacher self-efficacy, confidence, and agency, changes that impacted positively on student engagement but did not have the anticipated impact on student agency. This second project built on the previous one to explore the impact of introducing a coaching programme for students, with the primary aim of growing student agency.
Our feeling is that as students discovered their voice and began to understand more about student agency, they looked to gain greater ‘say’. Students talked about having ‘more important say’ in what was happening in learning. In short, to begin with we feel they were looking for a lower level of choice in where they did their learning and who they did it with. As they gained more voice, they looked to have voice in more important aspects, such as learning design - say in what learning they actually did, rather than just in where and when they did it.
Project team’s final report
Despite disruptions, the project had a positive impact on student wellbeing and on student-teacher and student-student relationships. While the growth in agency was not as great as anticipated, it was apparent. The team wonders whether students have “raised the bar” in their perceptions of what agency is, so what had previously been perceived as aspirational was no longer good enough. They observed that the coaching programme appeared to be particularly beneficial for less mature or socially awkward students, suggesting that this is because coaching protocols provide them with a structure for social interaction. The growth in student agency led to some students voicing themselves in ways that surfaced and challenged deeply held teacher beliefs. The team realised that a coaching programme for students needs to be accompanied by targeted coaching for teachers that helps them respond productively to such challenges.
The project demonstrates that a coaching programme for students that contextualises coaching within the teaching and learning programme can have significant benefits for learning communities. It shows the value of a multi-layered approach, with coaches being coached themselves and raises questions about what to look for in students as they grow in agency.
The inquiry story
This year-long inquiry involved all the year 5 and 6 teachers and students at Amesbury School. It was led by two teachers who had participated in a previous TLIF project that had grown the coaching skills of middle school leaders. It also utilised the coaching expertise of the school’s principal.
What was the focus?
A previous TLIF project at Amesbury School had sought to grow teacher-leaders through a coaching approach. Participants received ongoing coaching themselves, while also learning to coach others, and developed a framework mapping out what growth and development looks like in coaching leadership. The framework enables teacher-leaders to self-monitor and identify their next steps for learning. The team reported that this innovation significantly improved teacher-leaders’ self-efficacy, self-control, and agency. They were better able to see other people’s perspectives, to reflect, and to question. Student engagement significantly improved, though hoped-for lifts in student agency and voice did not.
The leaders of this second project theorised that the lifts in teacher-leader agency could be replicated in students if they, too, were trained as coaches and given authentic opportunities to practise their skills with their peers. Development of an evaluation framework, like that developed for teachers, would help in sustaining the approach over time.
The team developed the following inquiry statement:
We would like to know whether a coaching leadership approach with students leads to greater personal agency, self-efficacy, and achievement outcomes for our year 5 and 6 students. As such, we would like to explore how teachers can work together to develop an authentic coaching leadership approach with students that is a fully integrated part of their learning programme.
We hope to develop a framework for what this growth and development “looks like” in students, and the ability to measure it; and to know whether it leads to students acting to make a difference both within the learning community and beyond. Our hope is that, with a framework to map out this development in students, teachers will be better able to integrate this learning into daily learning programmes.
What did the teachers try?
The teachers took a collaborative inquiry approach to planning how they would develop coaching skills in their students. This was achieved through a combination of training, opportunities to practise, and opportunities to reflect.
In the first term, the teachers designed and delivered the first of two coaching modules. In weekly sessions, all year 5 and 6 students were trained in the GROWTH model: defining a Goal, understanding the current Reality, identifying Options, and planning the Way forward. Sessions focused on coaching skills, such as active listening, reflective questioning, three levels of questions, paraphrasing, clarifying, and summarising. The teachers set up guided situations within which the students could practise these skills together. They also supported the students to practise their coaching skills during ‘Our Time’, an initiative through which students work collaboratively in small groups to contribute to a cause or project in the local community.
In the second term, each student identified an interest or skill they had that might benefit another person or small group in the school community. They then led weekly coaching sessions in which they supported less skilled fellow students to grow and develop in this area of competence. These sessions were followed up by opportunities for refection, supported by their coaching teacher and peers.
In the third term, the teachers revised the coaching programme to develop a more differentiated approach, with weekly teaching of core coaching skills and dispositions tailored to the skills and needs of students. The teachers also developed new strategies to broaden the range of coaching relationships students could experience. One of these was a system called ‘Study Buddies’, where students completed some of their core learning in small groups made up of diverse students who did not usually work or play closely together. The makeup of these groups was changed every three to four weeks. Another new system was called ‘CHATs’ – Coaching, Help, and Advice Teams. These teams were used for group coaching, work on social skills goals, assessment of learning, and for discussion around any issues that arose in the school or hub. Again, the CHATs were made up of small groups of diverse students who initially did not know each other well.
The students continued to engage in coaching and the weekly reflective sessions as Term 4 progressed. Thus, they were both coaching their peers and being coached themselves. They reflected on both their development as coaches, and on the development of the people they were coaching.
What happened as a result of this innovation?
Wellbeing data showed a significant improvement in students’ sense of safety and a 10 per cent improvement in the target area of student agency. Engagement improved a little at the mid-point of the inquiry but then slipped back to where it had been. Student achievement data for reading, writing, and mathematics showed a slow but steady improvement. It is worth noting that two of the four participating teachers left and were replaced at the mid-way point, and that the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted the final terms. This may have had an impact on outcomes. What is clear is that while the data raises questions for the team, the overall trend for students is positive.
Teachers noticed that the introduction of the Study Buddy and CHAT systems worked to break down barriers between students in ways that were maintained in other contexts. Students were surprised at finding that they had more in common with some of their peers than they had expected, and the Wellbeing Survey revealed they felt that there was greater mutual respect. Students made choices to work in more diverse groups, no longer requiring instruction to mix themselves up for learning activities.
Teachers also observed that the coaching programme was most beneficial for students who were socially awkward or immature. It provided a framework for interactions that seemed to provide a scaffold, with rules they could follow and that were generally used by everyone in the conversation.
Students did not yet see coaching practices as something that could be part of ongoing interactions with friends and whānau. Rather, they saw them as a way of building connections with people they didn’t yet know well. This concept is a next step for the team and will be built into the student coaching development framework.
Relationships between teachers and students strengthened. Teachers found that they spent more time with students and that they were implementing coaching skills and strategies when supporting students to work through difficulties. Likewise, they used them with each other, for example, engaging in active listening rather than switching off or getting annoyed when they disagreed with someone.
Some challenging issues arose for teachers. One was that as students found their ‘voice’ they provided uncomfortable feedback, with some saying inconsistencies in teacher practice meant they behaved differently with different teachers. Sometimes, these messages from students were expressed in ways that felt disrespectful. A second issue was that as teachers began to explore student feedback saying they weren’t given enough ‘real choice’, some deficit beliefs were surfaced. This surfacing of deep-seated assumptions and beliefs did not happen until about eighteen months into the project, at a time when the team had felt they had built a tight unit.
The team developed a first draft of the framework of student coaching development. This is a work in progress, as the team has learned a lot more about what it should include, including the recognition that a more abrasive expression of student voice may be part of an individual’s progression towards greater agency. As it continues the programme, the team intends to closely monitor a small group of students to understand their growth pathways and map it out on the student coaching framework. They also intend to link this framework to the one for teachers.
What did they learn?
While coaching is a routine part of the professional life of teacher at Amesbury School, the student programme did not have a dedicated coaching strand for teachers. The issues around inconsistency of teacher practice and the exposure of some deficit thinking suggests that targeted coaching for teachers needs to be built into the student coaching programme. The team believes that this is necessary if they are to continue the shift from a ‘culture of niceness’ to one in which they are comfortable to have robust conversations that may provoke a shift in mindset. Such a shift requires the involvement of experts who are external to the school, as well as in-house experts who are available on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, the coaching supervision that was part of the school’s previous TLIF project needs to be part of this initiative. In other words, the approach to coaching needs to be multi-layered.
While student engagement was not the focus of this inquiry, there had been an assumption that it would improve with reports of greater student agency. The teachers learned that, while students were able to identify strategies and approaches that they found helpful, overuse of any one strategy became tiresome. Teachers are now thinking about what this means for learning design. They talk about investing in the heart of learning design, ensuring they constantly evaluate learner needs and select tools and strategies that address changing needs, contexts, and purposes.
The improvement in students’ sense of agency was significant, but still not as much as the team had hoped. They suspect that as students become more agentic, their concept of what agency means becomes more refined. They expect to have a say in more areas than they previously thought about. This connects with the finding that some students expressed their opinion of teacher practice in ways that felt offensive. This, the team suggests, is an indicator of growth and an opportunity for teaching students about how to use their voice in a more appropriate way that is empowering for both teacher and student.
Inquiry team
This project had two leads: Ursula Cunningham and Demelza Murrihy-Topp, who worked with several other teachers in Amesbury School.
The intention was to have external expert support from Jan Robertson, who consulted on the school’s previous TLIF inquiry, and internal expert support from Amesbury School principal, Lesley Murrihy. Covid-19 restrictions meant that Jan was not able to participate, so Lesley took on all of this role.
For further information
If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leaders: Ursula Cunningham at urs@amesbury.school.nz and Demelza Murrihy-Topp at demelza@amesbury.school.nz
Reference list
Amesbury School (2018). Middle leaders: working in transformative ways. Summary TLIF report. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Briggs, M., and van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2011). The development of peer coaching in primary school children in years 5 and 6. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9: 1415–1422.
Murrihy, L. (2009). Coaching and the growth of three New Zealand educators: A multi-dimensional journey. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Robertson, J. (1995). Principals’ partnerships: An action research study on professional development of New Zealand school leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching leadership: Building educational leadership capacity through coaching partnerships. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
Robertson, J.M. (2016). (2nd ed.). Coaching leadership: Building educational leadership capacity through coaching partnerships. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
Robertson, J., & Murrihy, L. (2005). Personal learning in teachers’ professional development. Education Today, (5)4, 4–5, 30–31.
Robertson, J., & Murrihy, L. (2006). Developing the person in the professional. Building the capacity of teachers for improved student learning: The missing basket – personal learning. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.
Robertson, J., & Webber, C. (2002). Boundary-breaking leadership: A must for tomorrow’s learning communities. In Leithwood, K., & Hallinger, P. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 519–553). Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Nieuwerburgh, C (2018). Coaching in education: Getting better results for students, educators and parents. London: Karnac.
Navigation
Contact TLIF
If you have any questions about TLIF projects, please contact us at:
Email: TLIF Mailbox