Who sets the tone in coaching conversations?

Literature on teacher PD continually emphasizes dimensions of adult learning theory to position educators as professionals driving their own learning. Collaborative coaching models that seek to build partnerships between coaches and teachers thrive on mutual ownership and expertise to guide the coaching process. At the same time, we spend a lot of time addressing coaching discourse: both what coaches say and how they say it. In analyzing language, we look closely at use of reflective dialogue and questioning strategies as often derived from Cognitive Coaching. Within our coaching program, we put these ideas to practice through a number of video analysis activities that focus on balance of talk time and noting and naming coaches moves through language. In these cases, we bring in the 7 Norms of Collaboration to identify examples of paraphrasing, asking clarifying and probing questions, putting ideas on the table, validating teacher expertise, etc. 
​
Yet, underlying these instructional approaches is a focus on coach behavior as it contributes to the collaborative experience. I recently found myself wondering if spending so much time on coach contributions is inherently limiting our understanding of teacher contributions and undermining the partnership framing to begin with. 

---

This question emerged during a coaching lab where I observed an elementary math teacher working with the district math coordinator (who was using a student-centered coaching model to guide her work). Throughout the video segment, the coach repeatedly posed open-ended questions, drew on the teacher's knowledge and ideas, and provided much-needed guidance for implementing the new curriculum that was the focus of this coaching cycle. In reading my notes, I could see all of the strategic moves the coach was making. Yet, in viewing the video as a whole, it felt overwhelmingly one-sided and coach-directed. Why was my lasting impression of the exchange so different from the evidence emerging in my notes? 

Then, I realized it was the teacher's contributions that were setting the directive tone and pushing the coach to take charge as she did. This is not all that novel, as teachers often offer up control to coaches as experts who must push back by creating greater space for teachers at the table. What made this exchange different was the teacher's use of imperative rather than conditional language. Typically, I observe teachers making statements such as, "What should I do about....," "How could I....," "What if we.....," "What do you think about...." In all of these frames, the teacher is directing the topic by putting an idea on the table, sometimes looking for clarifications or validation, and at all points, jointly contributing to the instructional process through sharing expertise.

​In this video segment, the teacher's language looked much different. While she continually asked questions (which is usually an indication of agency and co-ownership), these questions took an imperative tone, such as: "Am I doing this...," "And then I am doing what?," What do I do when..." In these cases, the language framed the teacher as actively being directed by the coach, undermining collaboration by focusing on the "I" as constructed through the directives from the coach. Of course it is still possible for the coach to redirect the flow of discussion by turning these questions back on the teacher as reflective prompts, but in most cases, she provided clear answers that reinforced the imperative nature of this exchange. 

This leads me to wonder on a larger scale if it might be fruitful to do some form of discourse analysis of teacher and coach language use by utilizing coaching lab videos from the past three years. What might we learn about these partnerships? How does this help us to understand ownership and agency? How do we help coaches to be aware of this positioning 'in the act' of coaching?