Learning to expand our communities to support coaching for equity: a collaboration of seven university-based teacher preparation programs Free

Teacher preparation programs (TPPs) are challenged to recruit and prepare teachers for an increasingly diverse global community. Our paper responds to two current challenges facing U.S. TPPs: (a) teacher candidates' (TCs') understanding of equity and its impact on schooling and (b) decentralized teacher preparation that often leads to varied, and at times incongruent, ideas about quality teaching. We address these challenges as a cross-institution group focused on providing consistent and quality coaching experiences impacting equitable instruction in schools. The cross-institution context holds potential to attend to variation in context while developing shared understandings to forward widespread change.

The first challenge highlights the continued need to prioritize equity within TPPs, while ensuring that program development addresses more equitable teaching and learning in K–12 education. External accountability policies tied to measures of academic achievement often constrain TPPs' innovation around teaching equity. Thus, TPPs are challenged to address all components of needed change within schools, education systems and their programs (Bomer and Maloch, 2019). TPPs address these transformative changes within programs by prioritizing the support of TCs through instruction, curriculum and coaching in coursework and clinical field experiences. Coaching in particular has been a priority for TPPs in ensuring experiences prepare TCs to be more equity-focused and critically conscious in their teaching (Land, 2018; Wetzel et al., 2017). Our definitions and approaches to coaching steer away from evaluative, prescriptive models and toward coaching that emphasizes participation, collaboration and reflection (Wetzel et al., 2017). Our work also focuses on coaching for equity (Aguilar, 2020; Wetzel et al., 2023), a framework for supporting TCs in recognizing the root causes of challenges they face in classrooms and creating new, transformational practices.

The second issue TPPs face is deeply entrenched in the individualism prioritized in education outcomes. In the United States, unlike other countries (e.g. Canada, Finland, Korea) (Moon, 2016; Wetzel et al., 2017), there are no national regulations around teacher preparation. Thus, the priorities of programs and how to prepare “good” teachers fall to individual states and teacher preparation routes. States and institutions too are siloed, often around the same issues of preparing teachers for equitable schooling. There is a lack of collaboration in sharing innovations and lessons learned, limiting the impact from one preparation program to the next. Hyperlocalized efforts in programs lead to replicated efforts and learning, slowing widespread change. Teacher educators (TEs) and researchers must attend to national and local variations in contexts to focus on how we might better prepare TCs (Goldhaber, 2019).

In response to these challenges, we are a university-based teacher preparation networked improvement community (NIC) of seven universities tackling a persistent problem of strengthening coaching for TCs. The COVID-19 pandemic created new opportunities for expanding coaching support within clinical experiences because of the shift to virtual and hybrid learning. Using improvement science guiding principles, the NIC interrogated the conditions for supporting TCs through coaching with a focus on the variation of contexts to determine “what works, for whom, and under what conditions” (LeMahieu et al., 2015, p. 446). While experimental education research methodologies often seek to minimize variation in both intervention and setting, improvement science embraces variability to fully understand the context of change.

Our research examines the development of new coaching practices across institutions as well as how the NIC learned together through these designs. We ask:

Improvement science (e.g. Bryk et al., 2015; LeMahieu et al., 2015) and equity coaching (Aguilar, 2020) guided our NIC’s design, methodology and interpretation of the cyclical revisions to resolve problems of practice.

Improvement science emerged in the business world; Deming (1994) pioneered the process by examining how international corporations were continuously improving their outcomes. More recently, scholars have drawn on improvement science in the field of education (LeMahieu et al., 2015), where researchers form NICs with district leaders, teachers and other stakeholders to facilitate change within school systems (Biag and Sherer, 2021; Daniel et al., 2020). Turns toward improvement science allow researchers to privilege variation and context as important sources of learning (Lewis, 2015). This methodology seeks to find and test small, iterative changes addressing problems of practice (Bryk et al., 2015), to reform ideas for faster dissemination of effective changes.

Bryk et al. (2015) proposed principles and core questions that have since guided researchers taking up improvement science. Core questions include (a) “What is the specific problem I am trying to solve?” (b) “What change might I introduce and why?” and (c) “How will I know whether the change is actually an improvement?” (p. 9). Improvement is maximized through NICs focused on a shared problem of practice (Dolle et al., 2013) as they draw upon the expertise of multiple stakeholders to accelerate learning and institutionalize improvements (LeMahieu et al., 2015).

Equity does not directly result in equality, and nor does it result in inclusion, as literature may suggest. These misconceptions may lead TPPs to enact a “pan-diversity” approach that perpetuates the status quo by emphasizing an indiscriminate view of differences (Li and Jee, 2021, p. 127). We approach equity with an assumption that learners enter classrooms with visible resources and beneath the surface are their historical, social and cultural strengths (Muhammad, 2020). Thus, equity prioritizes a shift from singular narratives and ways of teaching in schools to ensure teaching that centers children and promotes justice in school spaces. Culturally sustaining practices (CSPs) honor children’s and families' strengths (Paris and Alim, 2017); teachers' choices in designing instruction, materials and interacting with students are always emerging with and from those resources.

Equity in teaching also attends to noticing and naming the influence of structural inequalities (Aguilar, 2020), including resource distribution that often benefits White, able-bodied, economically advantaged students. As such, equity goes beyond providing the same to each child and instead recognizes the structural barriers and injustices that must be overcome. Disparities have been more pronounced for families and communities of Color and those historically marginalized (Ladson-Billings, 2021). Equity also refers to ways that local, state and national policies impact teaching. For example, “don’t say gay” and anti-critical race theory movements frighten teachers, constraining their abilities to serve students equitably (Morgan, 2022). Finally, educational equity negates any kind of predictability of student success or failure based on social or cultural factors (Aguilar, 2020). Equity in coaching is a proxy for these and other issues teachers navigate. Our study draws upon equity-focused coaching to produce equitable and rigorous learning experiences for all children, while combating deficit thinking. We examined specific problems of practice through improvement science, centering equity-focused coaching.

Existing scholarship around coaching in TPPs focuses on how shifts in coaching practices impact TCs' development and teaching. These shifts include changing the coaching focus, tools and support. Previously, publications have looked at coaching and mentoring as both practice based and connected to field experiences (e.g. Hoffman et al., 2018; Hope et al., 2022). Scholarship has identified the need for partnerships and for collaboration and the impact for preservice teachers and coaches alike. Our work expands on this by looking at the use of coaching tools and strategies such as protocols (Hope et al., 2022) to move toward equity-based coaching outcomes.

Coaching in fields outside of education (e.g. business, psychology) has a long history with varying definitions (Passmore and Lai, 2019). Across fields, a common consensus involves coaches interrogating their practices and becoming researchers (Passmore and Fillery-Travis, 2011) to best support coachees. Aligned with improvement science’s focus on incremental change, a small body of literature on coaching TCs addresses how such changes can contribute to teacher learning and growth (Wetzel et al., 2020; Keiler et al., 2020). This scholarship emphasizes collaboration (Barnhart, 2020; Walker, 2020), examining student work and classroom interactions (Wetzel et al., 2017) and critical and equity-oriented conversations (Daly, 2022; Land, 2018). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional hierarchies within coaching, with coaches intentionally shifting toward coplanning and coreflection, improving instructional decision-making by solving problems of practice together (Barnhart, 2020; Walker, 2020).

Coaching shifts have resulted in a variety of outcomes for TCs' instructional practice. Lammert and Tily (2022) found that intentionally partnering TCs for peer coaching supported collaboration and adaptive teaching (Parsons and Vaughn, 2016). Peer coaching provided TCs opportunities to negotiate problems of practice and grow together, disrupting hierarchical coaching structures. Wetzel et al. (2020) also illuminated innovations in coaching, utilizing recorded classroom observations to focus coaching on student work and classroom interactions rather than on evaluative notes. This allowed TCs to discuss their practices and attend to students' responses while moving toward critical conversations about teaching.

Studies have also revealed shifts in coaching to focus on instructional moments exhibiting power dynamics (Daly, 2022; Land, 2018). Land (2018) highlighted through critical discourse analysis how coaches can center criticality by coconstructing ideas with TCs to reflect on power dynamics. They compared levels of equity in the classroom, including interpersonal and local levels of power, interactions and access, to more global and macrolevels of equity-oriented coaching foci that extend beyond the classroom community. Addressing both interpersonal and macrolevels of equity coaching centers justice and not simply equality in teaching. Variations in TCs' responses during such conversations highlighted “the complexity and difficulty” in maintaining a focus on critical issues within and beyond the classroom (Land, 2018, p. 505). Daly (2022) also found that centering equity in coaching conversations requires building relationships and trust, and coaches should modify existing protocols to support equitable teaching.

Coaches also often make choices about coaching based on unique contexts, incorporating tools and supports accordingly (Wetzel et al., 2020). Previous research identified how particular coaching tools such as structured protocols (Keiler et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2021), videos (Mosley Wetzel et al., 2017; Land, 2018) and mixed-reality simulations (MRS; Bautista and Boone, 2015; Walters et al., 2021) contribute to TCs' development. For instance, Keiler et al. (2020) incorporated opportunities for feedback and reflection within structured coaching protocols, encouraging mentees to self-reflect, recognizing their growth. This disrupted traditional hierarchical models of coaching and instead focused on equity by actively involving TCs in coaching, and mentees indicated this allowed for centering students in their teaching.

Other studies (Wetzel et al., 2016; Land, 2018) point to the affordance of technological tools during coaching interactions. Mosley Wetzel et al. (2017) found when mentor teachers used filmed observations for engaging in analysis, TCs and coaches more closely examined specific teaching moments, allowing for more productive and critical conversation focused on learners. Similarly, Land (2018) found that utilizing videos during coaching enabled TCs to discuss critical topics because the tool prioritized actual language and actions in their teaching.

Another technological tool leveraged by coaches has included MRS, which offers opportunities for teaching particular skills (Bautista and Boone, 2015) and improving TCs' teaching of self-efficacy (Gundel et al., 2019). Walters et al. (2021) used an MRS coaching protocol to support special education TCs' acquisition of the system of least prompt sequence. Utilizing the protocol alongside MRS had significant impacts, and TCs reported their simulator experiences helped more than did live practice for learning teaching strategies. The authors suggested a need for continued research on equity and exploring power dynamics when using MRS.

Coaches also desire continued learning on coaching TCs effectively (Denton and Heiney-Smith, 2020). Scholars indicate the importance of providing ongoing support for coaches including training with discussion and reflection (Russell et al., 2020), mentoring workshops (Denton and Heiney-Smith, 2020; Henning et al., 2015) and engaging in coaching communities (Wetzel et al., 2020). Through design-based iterations for instructional coaching, Russell et al. (2020) found that both coaches and TCs benefited from the ongoing support coaches received in developing coaching conversations, leading to deeper considerations of students and teaching practices. Similarly, Wetzel et al. (2020) argued that practices of “coaching the coach” can support mentor teachers to develop new understandings of their own coaching, identify their coaching techniques and engage in tensions that enhance reflection.

Although this literature focuses on shifts in coaching, tools and supports, we found ourselves asking how we could build understanding in these areas across TPPs. Further, we recognized a need to examine transformative shifts in coaching to center equity in the ongoing process of programmatic changes. By examining PDSA cycles of small change iterations, from seven institutions in our NIC, we disrupt the silos that are often present both within and across institutions. Further, we recognize a gap in this literature based on a focus on virtual or hybrid contexts. Our study highlights the findings that contribute to the literature by focusing on these gaps.

We employed improvement science methodology to explore coaching contexts within and across universities representing the NIC and to make iterative changes aligned to work previously done in schools and school districts (Biag and Sherer, 2021; Daniel et al., 2020). Our NIC committed to ensuring that students are taught by culturally competent, innovative teachers. Over years of improvement work, a problem surfaced of the variation in field experiences in that not all TCs were developing appropriate dispositions, strategies and transformative practical knowledge. We sought to build knowledge for strengthening field experiences by interrogating varying contexts to learn more about similarities and differences in coaching for understanding ways to improve in alignment with our shared commitment (Bryk et al., 2015). The contexts and demographics of the participating institutions are highly varied across the state of Texas in the United States. Two of the universities are private institutions, and four are in major metropolitan areas. Variations are further highlighted within each TPP, including the type of programs offered, the demographics of TCs served and where field experiences occurred. Improvement science methodology allowed for using tools to accelerate learning about variation for refining our working theory about how to strengthen field experiences and to see variation across contexts as a catalyst for transformative learning and changes (Lewis, 2015). Unlike traditional education research methods, improvement science capitalizes on variation to deepen understandings.

In the early stages of our NIC, we identified coaching as an area of improvement to focus on how to reach our larger aims. In other TPP contexts (e.g. United Kingdom), larger governing bodies like the European Mentoring and Coaching Council and International Coach Federation set standards; however, in the United States, there is no central regulating body for teacher education and coaching within TPPs. Our group of TPPs grounds itself in an equity coaching framework (Aguilar, 2020) and our continued examination of coaching in improvement science (e.g. Bryk et al., 2015; LeMahieu et al., 2015). As the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, TPPs pivoted their field experiences online; improvement science helped us examine our virtual contexts and reduce variation in the quality of field experiences. We engaged in PDSA cycles to test change ideas involving coaching protocols in our local contexts (i.e. university TPPs) including (a) preobservation, observation and postobservation (POP) cycles; (b) mixed-reality simulations; and (c) course-based rehearsals of teaching. PDSA cycles entailed reflection on a change idea’s effectiveness, modification for further testing or abandoning unproductive changes. Per improvement science, we engaged key participants (e.g. coaches, TCs) early and often, including discussion of the study design, purpose, and how their feedback would continue to reshape our coaching practices.

Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines and approval, we anonymized all participant data. As our study and IRB approval focused on the researchers' reflections and iterations of PDSA cycles, we have used numerical numbers in place of university names to uphold IRB ethical guidelines and considerations.

We engaged in data collection through PDSA forms and analytic memos to understand the value of cross-institutional analysis of coaching protocols across the three field experience contexts described above (Table 1). PDSA forms focused on coaching protocols and were created within each TPP. In total, 60 PDSA forms were collected between spring 2021 and spring 2022, along with artifacts (e.g. course syllabi, planning documents, protocols) and detailed notes from monthly NIC meetings. Seven analytic memos were created from collaborative analysis, described further below.

Analysis was conducted in two distinct phases, as is recommended for comparative case designs (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2009). First, we analyzed each case independently, using open-coding procedures for PDSA reflections. Additionally, we collaborated across universities during monthly NIC meetings to deepen findings within cases and explore emerging themes. These meetings were pivotal in providing opportunities for partners to provide their input. During meetings, smaller teams of each coaching protocol type would meet in breakout rooms, collaborating through concerns. After each meeting, we developed reflective analytic memos to verify findings for each context, summarizing our learnings. Partners peer reviewed these memos (Creswell and Guetterman, 2019), which allowed each university to reflect upon the findings and adjust their individual practices. This phase of data analysis was repeated iteratively throughout the PDSA cycles for refinement.

For the second phase, we conducted cross-case analysis to compare cases through constant comparative methods (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) to increase generalizability and deepen understandings (Miles et al., 2014). Using our research questions, two teams of two analysts developed emergent themes across cases through multiple rounds of open and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). We triangulated findings with meeting notes, analytic memos and PDSA forms. Again, NIC team meetings provided opportunities for collaborative discussions around proposed findings, ensuring university partners member-checked the accuracy of cases.

Two themes emerged from our cross-case analysis. The first is that program coaching innovations led to professional support for coaching, adapting digital technologies, and coaching alignment within programs. The second explores how the NIC moved individual programs toward equity-focused coaching through revising protocols, implementing teaching rehearsals, and leveraging TCs' expertise. We do not claim that change cycles centered outcomes of equity across all programs; rather, our findings describe how the NIC used improvement science to address multiple challenges in preparing TCs for an increasingly diverse global community. Below, we present these findings in greater depth.

Program innovations were shared, tested and refined through the NIC. Early on, we identified that some universities had coaching protocols in place, while others did not, presenting an inequity in TCs' experiences. After sharing existing protocols, NIC partners created and adapted a common protocol to changing contexts, such as virtual teaching and learning. Comparing the common protocol experiences across seven universities led to deeper understandings around the need for professional support for coaches, flexibility with digital technologies and further TPP alignment.

Using a common protocol allowed the NIC to reflect and improve coaching language and practices. For instance, Institution 4 implemented a questionnaire to seek feedback from coaches on the POP cycle protocol. Coaches requested more guidance on implementing the protocol with fidelity and advocated for spaces to acknowledge TCs' growth. While partners were interested in improvement, coaches expressed, “there was no spot on the form to say what the good things were,” and they wanted to ensure “space to celebrate and reflect on the positives along with the negatives.” Using this feedback, the NIC refined the protocol to respond to coaches' and TCs' needs. Institution 4 then created a feedback system to inform the ongoing support they provided coaches which informed other institutions' future PDSA cycles focused on coaches' experiences.

Institutions 3 and 7’s implementation of protocols also led to ongoing support for coaches. At Institution 3, partners invited coaches to collaborate in coaching TCs using MRS, which afforded modeling the protocol and coaching strategies for the larger group of coaches. One partner shared that bringing the coach “to share her expertise” enacted her hope to “close the gap between the program courses and experiences in the field.” This communal coaching experience highlighted the importance of alignment of coaches, generated nuanced perspectives on teaching and learning and invited coaches to give feedback on the coaching protocol. This also supported more streamlined communication and established a common language with TCs. Similarly, partners at Institution 7 worked alongside coaches to coconstruct equity-oriented questions for coaching cycles. Partners shared, “In this first iteration, we built on the co-constructed questions by the coaches … [they] were still focused so much on the tensions in coaching in general. In the second cycle, they were actually pulling in the [equity-oriented] themes.” By providing ongoing support for coaches, partners found that coaches became equipped to implement revised questions. Modifying the protocol with multiple stakeholders, including coaches, allowed for centering the program’s equity-oriented themes across TCs' experiences.

By comparing multiple PDSA cycles from three different institutions related to “coaching the coach,” the NIC gained a deeper understanding of coaches' perceptions and experiences. Partners' use of coaching protocols illuminated processes that could support coaches' learning and supported the understanding in the field that coaching protocols must be adapted to the unique contexts of the program and the stakeholders (e.g. Keiler et al., 2020).

As field-based instructors, NIC partners were familiar with technologies that complement in-person practicums, such as video analysis (see Wetzel et al., 2016) that allows coaches and TCs to carefully examine practice and reflect together. Throughout the 2020–2021 academic year, opportunities to observe classroom students and their responses to TCs' teaching became limited. Virtual and hybrid teaching and coaching landscapes required adaptations to protocols.

Because of each institution’s unique challenges, finding common ground for analyzing change was not always possible. Some institutions used a hybrid method of observing and reflecting on practice through video, while others used MRS. Thus, NIC partners studied different change ideas based on their unique contexts and TCs' needs (Rachford et al., 2017). This led to innovations in coaching practices across institutions and created a breadth of compiled innovations within the NIC. Due to the urgent and immediate virtual shift, field-based practicums were often removed or revised. At Institution 7, instructors shifted quickly when virtually teaching classroom learners became impossible. Instructors scaffolded modified course-based POP cycles for TCs to experience collaborative coaching on instructional decisions. TCs planned and practiced lessons in virtual breakout rooms, focusing on intentionality, responsiveness and equity as they coached each other using equity-focused questions. This adaptation created opportunities for application and coaching as instructors leveraged the affordances of digital technologies in response to new limitations.

At Institution 3, partners adapted protocols for simulation experiences. When testing the protocol, one coach commented that the protocol should include opportunities that leveraged the affordance of the technology to coach around specific parts of the lesson. Instead of implementing a POP cycle in this setting, partners reflected that they needed to “pause simulation” noting, “this is a unique feature of the MRS and it brings together the [coach] and the [partner]” to collaboratively “coach-in-the moment.” Partners at Institution 3 found that TCs were sometimes reluctant to pause because they wanted to push through difficult scenarios in teaching. However, pausing created spaces for coaches to discuss strategies with TCs and provided highly personalized learning experiences for them (Bautista and Boone, 2015). While Institution 3 was the only TPP examining virtual simulation experiences, the NIC as a whole generated technology-related innovations by sharing protocols and adapting them to alleviate challenges of teaching and coaching virtually.

Our analysis of innovations also revealed gaps and challenges in programs, a nascent theme in the TPP coaching literature. Primarily, partners realized that TCs were experiencing very different coaching models in their coursework and in their field placements. Across institutions, partners recognized and shared weaknesses in coaching and teaching that led to investigating improving program alignment.

Through POP cycle iterations at Institutions 5 and 7, disconnects between coursework and field experiences emerged related to program goals centered on diversity, equity and inclusion. Institution 5, for example, found a lack of culturally sustaining pedagogies (CSP) (Paris and Alim, 2017) in TCs' lesson plans, despite having discussed and modeled these practices in coursework. Partners observed that district-prescribed curriculum influenced TCs' lesson plans more than their coursework. Partners shared, “We thought they had a really good idea about how to implement [CSP, and now are] wondering if there is some compliance occurring.” This led to Institution 5’s coursework adaptations to add more explicit instruction and discussion of CSP. Institution 7 identified similar disconnects, and partners worked with coaches to coconstruct questions that would encourage TCs to reflect critically on their use of CSP. Partners shared, “One field supervisor [FS] chose [for the TC] to reflect on their placement, a much more strict placement classroom. They were able to reflect critically on the classroom environment.” Both of these innovations required partners to bridge silos between coursework and field experiences toward alignment between stakeholders. These are just two examples of how PDSA cycles led programs to examine their program alignment.

Intentional shifts to center equity in coaching emerged during NIC meetings and member-checking protocols in small groups. Consistently, partners raised questions about how coaching addressed equity. During one meeting, an NIC leader asked, “How are you all defining equity?” A lively conversation ensued leading to collecting systematic data on how equity was addressed in coaching and how each institution approached equity within their program and in relation to the K–12 schools they serve.

Looking across the cases, multiple institutions found that TCs and coaches connected equity to differentiation, but not always CSP. The research team analyzed varying definitions and applications of equity enacted in our unique contexts through interviews; we also reexamined data to determine how equity emerged. Across institutions, we found multiple definitions and enactments of equity (Table 2). Variance in definitions stemmed from the different contexts in which the programs exist (e.g. urban, rural, Hispanic-serving institutions). Additionally, institutions operated on different timelines for equity enactments within their program; some institutions sought greater coherence in an equity focus throughout their programs, while others began the process of introducing equity into their TPPs and coaching. As a means for envisioning more equitable coaching experiences for TCs, the protocols established consistency in TCs' coaching experiences within their respective programs.

Through the use of improvement science, partners raised questions of equity that resonated across institutions, although data showed significant variations in definitions of equity. Next, we share findings related to equity-focused innovations derived from change cycles. These practices are still in process for our programs; therefore, we do not claim sustained program improvements. Rather, these are areas that had great traction and shared energy for our NIC as we refined our equity-focused coaching supports.

Grounded in improvement science (Hannan et al., 2015; LeMahieu et al., 2015), coaches and partners across the seven institutions used coaching protocols as semi-structured tools with opportunities for innovations and responsiveness as they reflected on new insights during NIC meetings. One partner expressed, “The equity piece needs to be a very intentional reflection on the protocol itself, so it becomes a standard practice. We are missing opportunities to ask about equity when coaching.” The NIC concurred that partners should modify protocols to unique contexts, keeping the shared goal of centering equity.

From our cross-case analysis, we found that coaches used protocols as a guide to adapt their coaching within their context and with TCs rather than relying on the protocol as a coaching script (Wetzel et al., 2017). For instance, at Institution 1, coaches identified one area of the state appraisal system in which TCs needed support. Coaches adapted the POP cycle protocols to include specific equity-focused questions related to teacher evaluation domains. One partner shared that the adaptation created “a richer conversation between the [coach] and TC” and encouraged the TC to reflect some in advance, which resulted in a “better dialogue and questioning from the TC.” Similarly, Institution 5 adapted the POP coaching protocol after observing TCs' challenges implementing CSP in the field. As discussed above, the partners knew TCs were influenced by prescribed curriculum even though strategies were modeled in coursework. To address this, partners adapted the protocol to embed reflective pre- and postconference questions about diversity, equity and inclusion for coaches to address during the POP cycle. While both Institution 1 and Institution 4 modified their protocols based on TCs' needs, the variation occurred in how the institutions learned of TCs' challenges (e.g. appraisal data vs observational data) and where exactly they modified the protocol (e.g. questions, assessment). Despite the variation in these two innovations, both institutions prioritized equitable and responsive preparation of TCs (individualized experiences and coaching) and equitable teaching in schools.

Using MRS, Institution 3 adapted their protocol to embed equity-focused questions to dialogue with TCs on race, ethnicity and ability as connected to teaching. Coaches engaged in responsive coaching during simulation engagements to explicitly address equity; coaches invited TCs to repeat teaching tasks and apply strategies after discussing concerns. With the same goal to center equity, partners at Institution 7 revised their protocol by coconstructing questions with coaches to embed the TPP’s justice focus. Through these two institutions' iterations, coaches modified the protocol to intentionally center equity during coaching. The variation in the equity-focused conversations occurred during the protocols' use (e.g. during teaching using software vs. reflective debriefs after teaching).

The protocols further supported TCs in building equitable teaching practices by adding experiences with rehearsals (teaching without children present). Our analysis suggested that teaching rehearsals in course-based settings supported TCs in centering equity in their reflections. For instance, Institutions 2 and 7 utilized rehearsals that involved TCs receiving and utilizing peer feedback when reteaching. Due to the nature of virtual teaching and learning, instructors were challenged to reach all TCs who were divided into breakout rooms; thus, they designed experiences for peer coaching. Peers used guiding questions focused on equity, which supported TCs “to be vulnerable and take risks” in becoming more intentional teachers. Similarly, at Institution 3, TCs engaged in MRS, reteaching a previously taught lesson from their practicum classroom to improve their equity focus with coaches present. Rehearsals enhanced TCs' levels of content knowledge, confidence in their teaching and implementation. One partner mentioned, “The TC had confidence and content knowledge. He was able to bring back students who were distracted” to describe how the TC used the coaching feedback to adjust. These findings are consistent with literature that supports virtual learning environments as spaces for TCs to develop and practice teaching skills while receiving effective feedback from instructors and peers (Walters et al., 2021). Structuring coaching events in this way moved beyond models that evaluate TCs' demonstration or mastery of particular teaching competencies (Jacobs and Burns, 2021). Findings from Institutions 2, 3 and 7 prompted the NIC to design future iterations related to strengthening peer coaching and expanded change ideas to new contexts, leading to additional insights as described next.

Some iterations of PDSA cycles focused on adapting protocols to offer TCs more opportunities to build their confidence, plan and apply course content. Modifying the course-based protocol to include peers as coaches positioned TCs as experts with coaching knowledge, supporting them to design equity-oriented lessons. TCs at Institution 7 reported these experiences allowed for trying on new strategies as they embraced autonomy in decision-making. Peer coaching also enhanced shared learning experiences and collaborative reflections. A shared focus on equity-oriented teaching anchored TCs' feedback and decision-making connected to CSP. Peer coaching at Institution 3 in MRS teaching demonstrations led to rich debriefs where peers shared feedback through the chat feature. TCs felt open to offering peers suggestions with cameras off, resulting in safe and positive experiences for TCs. These findings demonstrate how peer learning communities can diminish hierarchies by engaging in mentoring processes together (Cornu, 2005).

Collaborative coaching also occurred within POP cycle contexts where coaches and TCs shared the coaching space. By including TCs in the coaching process, Institution 5 recognized all stakeholders invested in coaching while simultaneously disrupting common hierarchies in coaching models (e.g. Barnhart, 2020). Partners noticed TCs' agency and confidence when their “own reflections about the areas of strength and growth” were centered in debriefs. This shift in the protocol created opportunities for TCs to lead the conversation as experts with coaching and teaching knowledge.

While there were numerous affordances of peer coaching, notable challenges also warranted instructors' scaffolding and raised questions for future PDSA cycles. At Institution 7, instructors provided scaffolded language support for TCs when offering feedback to their peers' teaching videos. TCs mostly affirmed one another and asked clarification questions. While TCs indicated peer coaching experiences were helpful and appreciated the opportunity to review their teaching and students' engagement, instructors noticed critical and constructive feedback missing. TCs reported that some peers provided the same kind of feedback (e.g. suggestions) without necessarily deepening their equity-focused practices. In an additional course-based context at this same institution, TCs engaged in peer coaching to analyze critical and noncritical approaches to social studies using field placement artifacts. TCs similarly did not engage in critical questioning, thus calling attention to the need for instructors to scaffold the process and habits of engaging in critical and equity-oriented conversations around planning and teaching.

As a NIC, we explored the improvements that seven TPPs made to coaching TCs through the development of coaching protocols adapted to unique contexts. Improvement science provided direction “to develop the necessary know-how for a reform idea ultimately to spread faster and more effectively” (Bryk et al., 2015, p. 8). As illuminated in the findings, the know-how was creating consistent and quality coaching experiences tailored to individual TCs' needs and ensuring effective coaching for transformative and equitable instruction in K–12 classrooms (e.g. Aguilar, 2020). In this discussion, we focus on the protocol as a tool for disrupting silos within the NIC and an anchor toward building equity-focused practices.

The protocol served as a common connection point and offered spaces for innovation. A reader might wonder why the protocol is not included in this paper, and the reason is intentional. Our focus in this paper is the innovations that emerged from the collective focus on the idea and the practice of improvement science to bend practices toward equity. Our findings also indicate how a shared focus on this protocol allowed TPPs to learn together without sacrificing the value of local contexts and communities. Expanding from scholarship that protocols provide anchors to focus on critical conversations in coaching (Daly, 2022), our findings examine how coaching protocols can build the capacities of coaches across contexts and universities. Further, equity emerged as a focus for the NIC and kept our collective learning centered in the protocol’s revisions. Our findings suggest that coaching toward equity required clarifying equity, identifying key foci across programs and incorporating valuable, coconstructed feedback from stakeholders. This strengthened the protocol, collectively anchoring our learning.

We first disrupted silos within institutions. Improvement science starts with small change ideas, analyzed in one context. Coaching, examined through improvement science, exposed gaps across TPPs for further iterations and continued growth. Institutions do not often involve coaches in learning to grow practice, another disruption to silos within institutions. Previous scholarship indicates the value of collaborating with TCs and coaches to ensure more meaningful coaching outcomes (e.g. Barnhart, 2020). Our findings demonstrate the value of involving additional participants (e.g. coaches, TCs) throughout data collection and in group decision-making around coaching practices to inform ongoing research and evaluating programmatic changes. This provided a unified experience for TCs to bridge theories of CSP and equity to their teaching in real and imagined situations. It required trust with TCs (Daly, 2022) and all stakeholders in the TPP community. Through this focus and collaboration, TPPs began monitoring and expanding changes across their programs, beyond the context where the innovation was tested, leading to greater programmatic alignment. Next steps for these TPPs will be studying how these innovations were “improvements” at a program level or across contexts and settings.

A second disrupted silo was institutional isolation. In education, innovations often occur locally. The NIC’s collaboration was essential for building awareness of our shortcomings individually and institutionally, such as an inconsistent focus on equity across PDSA cycles, providing accountability to respond to shortcomings, and celebrating and learning from innovations. Given the lack of central frameworks for teacher education in the United States (Wetzel et al., 2017; Moon, 2016), there were inconsistent foci on equity, and at times, innovations at one institution were already being implemented at another university in the NIC. This afforded rich improvements, and learning, yet continued focus on context so necessary in improvement science. Our monthly meetings brought forward discussions on centering equity in coaching and resulted in revisions to protocols and coaching cycles to address equity with TCs. This created training for all partners as coaches and instructors (Russell et al., 2020) and reiterated the strength of coaching communities (Wetzel et al., 2020). As individual studies have found in their coaching shifts, the local level of responsiveness was critical in maintaining a focus (and outcome) on equity in coaching (i.e. Land, 2018), but there was also a larger community through which to track and engage in structural shifts toward equity in aspects of each program. The NIC focused on variation as a strength in learning about innovations and their successes and challenges and developed urgency for continued innovation. However, different from previous scholarship, these communities were local and state-wide, providing a broader perspective.

A third disrupted silo that emerged was that of coaching in preclinical vs. clinical settings. We surmise that this disruption may be related to COVID-19 and our new foci on preclinical teaching, virtual coaching and technology to adapt coaching in new learning contexts. As others have found, technology can improve TCs' efficacy (e.g. Gundel et al., 2019), and it is through this lens we examined the implementation of protocols to support equity-focused teaching and development. Through the PDSA cycles, we explored additional uses of technology (e.g. in-the-moment coaching, video-cued rehearsals) as well as peer coaching (Lammert and Tily, 2022). Our innovations focused on the continuum of know-how: we focused on building TCs' habits of centering equitable teaching to support all learners.

Starting with the protocol as an anchor, we built on previous scholarship examining how programs continually focus on improvement within their program, as well as across a NIC, to provide opportunities for problem-solving. PDSA cycles afforded a methodological and analytic tool for tracking innovations and learnings, and when we analyzed PDSA cycles, we explored how to apply our learnings across TPPs. There is power in the learnings that occurred in the NIC, and the messiness of the process and nuance of local contexts both strengthened learning and clarified the decisions made through the PDSA and protocol innovations. We underscore the value of improvement science as a means for tracking process and transformation for TCs and a focus on equity both at the university and in the impacts of equity-based instruction in K–12 schools to ensure that outcomes of programmatic innovations continue to connect to equitable teaching and learning for children.

While our learnings were rich, there are limitations in our design and analysis. First, we over-relied on improvement science without an explicit equity focus at the outset. While equity as an outcome and focus emerged, beginning with this as a design and theoretical orientation would have strengthened the impact of our findings. We recommend to others embarking on improvement science to center equity from the beginning and determine a practical definition of equity in coaching, teaching and outcomes to design and use with PDSA cycles and other tools.

Additionally, variations across the contexts of the TPPs were an important component in our findings. However, this also led to challenges in exploring the depth of contexts, communities and local innovations. As this NIC continued with improvement science after the data presented, we found additional priorities and areas for future research including centering equity, gathering data from PDSA protocol processes and participants and engaging in longitudinal analysis across multiple years of innovations. Improvement science can be messy, and therefore, some agencies might be hesitant about funding. An NIC allows for collaboration and explicit sharing, not only within TPPs but across TPPs, creating opportunities for accountability and not being complacent.

Protocols invited our TPPs to enact transformative coaching in response to TCs and local contexts and allowed us to work toward improving clinical field experiences. Coming together as a NIC was essential for sharing findings, refining processes, and enacting iterations. We encourage others to utilize similar methods to study the impacts of small changes while prioritizing equity and remaining committed to uncovering and responding to gaps in program design and TCs' experiences. It is imperative that in a global community, revisions to TPPs focus on equity in places where equity has not driven improvement (Bomer and Maloch, 2019). Schools, TPPs and teachers are often isolated in their practices. Centering practices of equitable coaching resists the deprofessionalization of both TPPs and teachers and instead aims toward transformation. It is our intention to share this work to inspire others to take on challenges, learn from limitations, and extend learning forward into new contexts.

This research is supported by a grant from the Charles Butt Foundation.

In addition to the named authors, many other contributors were active in the data analysis and ideas presented in this paper. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Lucinda Juarez, Patsy Sosa-Sanchez, Samuel Brower, Melissa Fogarty, Denise Dávila, Erin Green, Kerry Alexander, Claire Collins and Ann Marie Wernick who were active members of the research group.