I've recently spent a lot of time exploring the work of Jim Knight and his Impact Cycle approach to coaching. It's an immensely powerful approach.
Two elements of Jim's model have stuck out to me as real strengths. The first is the emphasis that Jim places on the emotional connection that coachees should have to their goals. By inserting questions into the coaching process like, ‘What would it mean to you if you could achieve that goal?' Jim's framework carefully probes into coachee's motivations. One of the key challenges of implementing a coaching program within a school can be encountering teachers who are resistant to coaching. Jim's emphasis on an an emotional connection to a goal can be an excellent way to counter that.
The second component of Jim's model that I see as a particular strength is the focus on collecting student-focussed data, and orienting coachee's goal around such data. Instead of just asking whether a teacher is implementing a target strategy, the Impact Cycle prompts the coach and coachee to work together to track metrics such as time taken to settle into the task at the start of class or, number of disruptions per ten minute interval, in order to gain a clear picture of whether progress is made towards the data-driven goal. This approach also reflects the fact that instructional techniques often need to be adapted to fit local circumstances,
But whenever I explore a new model, I always compare it to my prior knowledge, and ask myself if I can think of any ways that it can be improved. In the context of the Impact Cycle, and dialogic approaches to instructional coaching more broadly*, a comparison with my work on Cognitive Load Theory, as well as an excellent post from Josh Goodrich on the topic, has prompted me to consider how Jim's model could be added to in order to better reflect the difference in needs of novice vs. expert teachers.
Novices vs. Experts
One of the most valuable ideas from Cognitive Load Theory is that there are key differences between novices and experts in any domain and that these differences mean that novices and experts benefit more from different instructional approaches.
Differences between novices and experts
The primary difference between novices and experts is the domain-specific knowledge that they have, and the way that that knowledge is organised. Experts know much more about the domain that they're experts within. Crucially, this knowledge is stored in structures that mean that the relevant knowledge is activated at the relevant time, leading to better performance.
As I've written before, for experts, one valuable way that this key information is stored is in situation -> action pairs. When an expert stock broker sees a particular pattern in a price chart (situation), they immediately identify an appropriate trade to execute (action). Similarly, when an expert teacher identifies a particular behaviour in the classroom, such as students impulsively calling out without putting their hands up (situation), they'll immediately identify a teaching technique that's likely to help, such as frontloading** (action).
As Anders Ericcson summarises:
What sets expert performers apart from everyone else is the quality and quantity of their mental representations. Though years of practice, they develop highly complex and sophisticated representations of the various situations they are likely to encounter in their fields…These representations allow [experts] to make faster, more accurate decisions and respond more quickly and effectively in a given situation.
– Peak, Secrets from the new Science of Expertise, pg. 18
The expertise-reversal effect
These differences in mental representations mean that novices and experts benefit more from different instructional approaches. Put simply, experts benefit more from instruction that helps them to quickly and efficiently acquire relevant domain-specific knowledge, and organise it in structured ways (such as situation-action pairs). Clear modelling and worked examples are a good ways to do this.
Conversely, experts already have these mental representations, so they benefit more from situations that allow them to retrieve these mental representations and adapt them to new environments. This empowers the expert to more deeply explore the boundary conditions (limitations) of their knowledge, and active ingredients (mechanisms) that underlie them.
The fact that novices and experts differentially benefit from different instructional approaches is called the expertise-reversal effect (Kalyuga, 2009), and within the coaching context, it can be summarised as: Novices benefit from more structured and directive guidance, whereas experts benefit from more of a facilitative approach.*
Knowledge, Awareness, and Practice: Three ingredients for teacher improvement
Teaching is a performative act, so knowledge is never going to be sufficient for good teaching. But knowledge of effective instructional techniques is a pre-requisite to the use of those techniques.
Said another way, improving teaching (in a sustainable way) requires three key ingredients:
- Having a clear mental model of what better teaching looks like (knowledge),
- Identifying an are to focus on (awareness)
- Practicing until a new technique becomes a habit (deliberate practice)
Some may be tempted to place awareness as step 1, but it is actually more the case that knowledge that allows us to develop awareness in the first place. You need to know what should be present in a classroom in order to recognise its absence. But this isn't a one-way-only relationship between knowledge and awareness. It's more of an iterative relationship, which Yuval Noah Harari captures well when he writes, ‘You cannot experience something if you do not have the necessary sensitivity [awareness], and and you cannot develop your sensitivity except by undergoing a long string of experiences [knowledge].'
We can now consider our novices vs. our experts in relation to each of these three ingredients:
| Novice | Expert | |
| Knowledge level | Low | High |
| Awareness level | Low | High |
| Practice orientation | High (generally) | Depends upon the individual |
Similarly, we can consider the extent to which directive, dialogic, or facilitative coaching support coachees in each of these areas:
| Directive coaching | Dialogic coaching | Facilitative coaching | |
| Knowledge delivered | Directly | As needed | No |
| Awareness raised | Directly | Through questioning | Through questioning |
| Practice enabled | Directly | Directly | Directly |
Matching the instructional approach to the learner
So far we've covered four key points.
- Experts and novices are primarily differentiated by the extent to which they have relevant and well-structured knowledge about teaching and learning.
- Novices don't have this knowledge, so they benefit more from clear modelling and examples. Experts benefit more from opportunities to apply their knowledge to novel scenarios (expertise-reversal effect)
- Getting better at teaching requires not only knowledge but also awareness and practice
- Directive, dialogic, and facilitative each address knowledge, awareness, and practice to differing degrees
What's hopefully clear at this point is that for novice teachers who benefit more from direct modelling, a directive approach to coaching is most likely to be effective. For a truly expert teacher, a facilitative approach is likely to hold the most promise. And for an intermediate teacher, some mid-way point between the two (dialogic) is likely to be the best fit.
This realisation points to the effectiveness of a dialogic approach for many teachers, but it also points to the value of more directive and facilitative approaches for teachers at the two ends of the spectrum. In fact, I propose that it's most helpful to see these three types of coaching as part of a larger continuum of teacher learning that also includes initial teacher education, and coachees becoming coaches, as follows:
| Initial teacher education | Directive coaching | Dialogic coaching | Facilitative coaching | Acting as coach for others | |
| Knowledge | Delivered within a structured curriculum | Delivered at point-of-need | Co-contributed by coach and coachee | Retrieved in the role of coachee | Retrieved in the role of coach |
| Awareness | Raised by observing others | Raised by the coach | Raised by the coach’s questions | Raised by self-reflection (scaffolded by coach’s questions) | Shared with the coachee |
| Practice | Limited (practicum only) | Frequently, as a teacher | Frequently, as a teacher | Frequently, as a teacher | Frequently, as a coach |
In future posts, I hope to build more upon this idea, and further explore the key question that's on my mind at present, ‘How can a coaching program be structured to systematically match coachees with the form of coaching that best suits their needs?'
Refs and footnotes
Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Kalyuga, S. (2009). The expertise reversal effect. In Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning (pp. 58-80). IGI Global.
*For more on directive vs. dialogic vs. facilitative coaching, see Josh Goodrich's blog post here.
**Frontloading example: Instead of just saying, ‘How did Chi know to divide both sides by three here?' and having to deal with students impulsively calling out. A teacher can frontload their instructions with the desired method of participation by saying, ‘For the next question I don't want any calling out. lease put your hand up to show me you'd like to contribute and I'll call on someone. Ok, How did Chi know to divide both sides by three here?' Or, more simply, ‘With a hand up, How did Chi know to divide both sides by three here?' For more on this great idea, see Adam Boxer's post here.
Free PDF resource: For an excellent guide covering what Instructional Coaching is, a summary of the research evidence for Instructional Coaching, guidance for how to set up coaching in a school, advice on how to select and train great coaches, and more, check out the Steplab Beginner's Guide to Instructional Coaching.