# data[].attributes.body
Towards the end of Dr. Edwards' course, Learning Theories, I discovered this text. This book challenges educators to shift their thinking over seven educational principles, such as student/teacher roles and the purpose of assessments. Throughout the chapters, Julia Stern et al. 2021 includes "next-day strategies." I'm currently mulling over two concepts/quotes. First, "...view standards or outcomes of learning as the ceiling, or the sole and ultimate goal....A simple yet powerful shift is to view standards of learning as the metaphorical floor, an important foundation but not the ultimate goal of learning." (pg. 36) The second quote I'm reflecting over is "The key difference here demonstrates perhaps the most tremendous shift, from treating assessment as an accountability event to treating assessment as a system of feedback." As I am continuing to read this book, I plan on implementing practices such as transferable question stems this school year, and plan on revising my lesson plans for the 2024-2025 school year to transform how my students are learning.

Stern, J., Ferraro, K., Duncan, K., & Aleo, T. (2021). Learning that transfers: Designing curriculum for a changing world. Corwin Teaching Essentials.

# data[].attributes.body
How can we use our knowledge of the transformative power of combining mentorship and coaching for new principals to ignite our education communities?

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1398264.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Directive vs. Reflective Coaching Styles

# data[].attributes.headline
Building our background knowledge to become better leaders and listeners 

# data[].attributes.subject
Building our background knowledge to become better leaders and listeners 

# data[].attributes.body
When we are mindful of an individual's cultural context, we are able to effectively communicate. I appreciated how this article included charts featuring characteristics of each dimension and application advice.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M. (2010) "Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind," Third Revised Edition, McGrawHill.

MindTools | Home. (n.d.). Develop your personal wellbeing and career skills - Mind Tools - Mind Tools. https://www.mindtools.com/a1ecvyx/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indulgence Versus Restraint.

Note: in the original version of the book "Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation" was described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative."

Hofstede, Bond and Minkov scored each country on a scale of 0 to 100 for each dimension.

When Hofstede analyzed his database of culture statistics, he found clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions. And, because his research focused solely on IBM employees, he could attribute those patterns to national differences, and minimize the impact of company culture.

Let's look at the six dimensions in more detail.

1. Power Distance Index (PDI)

This refers to the degree of inequality that exists - and is accepted - between people with and without power.

A high PDI score indicates that a society accepts an unequal, hierarchical distribution of power, and that people understand "their place" in the system. A low PDI score means that power is shared and is widely dispersed, and that society members do not accept situations where power is distributed unequally.

Application: According to the model, in a high PDI country, such as Malaysia (100), team members will not initiate any action, and they like to be guided and directed to complete a task. If a manager doesn't take charge, they may think that the task isn't important.

2. Individualism Versus Collectivism (IDV)

This refers to the strength of the ties that people have to others within their community.

A high IDV score indicates weak interpersonal connection among those who are not part of a core "family." Here, people take less responsibility for others' actions and outcomes.

In a collectivist society, however, people are supposed to be loyal to the group to which they belong, and, in exchange, the group will defend their interests. The group itself is normally larger, and people take responsibility for one another's well-being.

Application: Central American countries Panama and Guatemala have very low IDV scores (11 and six, respectively). In these countries, as an example, a marketing campaign that emphasizes benefits to the community would likely be understood and well received, as long as the people addressed feel part of the same group.

3. Masculinity Versus Femininity (MAS)

This refers to the distribution of roles between men and women. In masculine societies, the roles of men and women overlap less, and men are expected to behave assertively. Demonstrating your success, and being strong and fast, are seen as positive characteristics.

In feminine societies, however, there is a great deal of overlap between male and female roles, and modesty is perceived as a virtue. Greater importance is placed on good relationships with your direct supervisors, or working with people who cooperate well with one another.

The gap between men's and women's values is largest in Japan and Austria, with MAS scores of 95 and 79 respectively. In both countries, men score highly for exhibiting "tough," masculine values and behaviors, but, in fact, women also score relatively highly for having masculine values, though on average lower than men.

Application: As we've highlighted, Japan has the highest MAS score of 95, whereas Sweden has the lowest measured value of five. Therefore, if you open an office in Japan, you should recognize you are operating in a hierarchical, deferential and traditionally patriarchal society. Long hours are the norm. And this can make it harder for female team members to gain advancement, due to family commitments.

At the same time, Japan is a culture where all children (male and female) learn the value of competition and winning as part of a team from a young age. Therefore, female team members are just as likely to display these notionally masculine traits as their male colleagues.

By comparison, Sweden is a very feminine society, according to Hofstede's model. Here, people focus on managing through discussion, consensus, compromise, and negotiation.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

This dimension describes how well people can cope with anxiety.

In societies that score highly for Uncertainty Avoidance, people attempt to make life as predictable and controllable as possible. If they find that they can't control their own lives, they may be tempted to stop trying. These people may refer to "mañana," or put their fate "in the hands of God."

People in low UAI-scoring countries are more relaxed, open or inclusive.

Bear in mind that avoiding uncertainty is not necessarily the same as avoiding risk. Hofstede argues that you may find people in high-scoring countries who are prepared to engage in risky behavior, precisely because it reduces ambiguities, or in order to avoid failure.

Application: In Hofstede's model, Greece tops the UAI scale with 100, while Singapore scores the lowest with eight.

Therefore, during a meeting in Greece, you might be keen to generate discussion, because you recognize that there's a cultural tendency for team members to make the safest, most conservative decisions, despite any emotional outbursts. Your aim is to encourage them to become more open to different ideas and approaches, but it may be helpful to provide a relatively limited, structured set of options or solutions.

5. Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation

This dimension was originally described as "Pragmatic Versus Normative (PRA)." It refers to the time horizon people in a society display. Countries with a long-term orientation tend to be pragmatic, modest, and more thrifty. In short-term oriented countries, people tend to place more emphasis on principles, consistency and truth, and are typically religious and nationalistic.

Application: The U.S. has a short-term orientation. This is reflected in the importance of short-term gains and quick results (profit and loss statements are quarterly, for example). It is also reflected in the country's strong sense of nationalism and social standards.

6. Indulgence Versus Restraint (IVR)

Hofstede's sixth dimension, discovered and described together with Michael Minkov, is also relatively new, and is therefore accompanied by less data.

Countries with a high IVR score allow or encourage relatively free gratification of people's own drives and emotions, such as enjoying life and having fun. In a society with a low IVR score, there is more emphasis on suppressing gratification and more regulation of people's conduct and behavior, and there are stricter social norms.

Application: According to the model, Eastern European countries, including Russia, have a low IVR score. Hofstede argues that these countries are characterized by a restrained culture, where there is a tendency towards pessimism. People put little emphasis on leisure time and, as the title suggests, people try to restrain themselves to a high degree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions - Understanding Different Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Work effectively with people from other nations and cultures by using Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions to understand how they will likely think and behave.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we hearing someone's public voice or private voice? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we hearing someone's public voice or private voice? 

# data[].attributes.body
In this four minute video, Jim Knight summarizes listening and shares one of his favorite strategies from Irving Seidman's book, Interviewing as Qualitative Research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaCfzIzIjW4

This reminds me of Stephen R. Covey's words in 1997, "'Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.'

Covey, S. R. (1997). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. Macmillan Reference USA.

Instructional Coaching. (2017, January 17). Listening [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaCfzIzIjW4

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Anrig.pdf

This article allows readers to reflect on the following question: are we having a "civil conversation" or are we collaborating?

By incorporating choice, voice (Knight, J. 2021) and building trust, our schools have the potential to "accomplish more" (Coleman, J. 1988)

References

Anrig, G. (2013). Cultivating collaboration: the science behind thriving labor-management relationships. AFT - American Federation of Teachers - A Union of Professionals. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Anrig.pdf

Coleman, J. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital" American Journal of Sociology, 94, Supplement (1988): S95-S120, as cited by Angrig, J. (2013)

Knight, J. (2021). The definitive guide to instructional coaching: Seven factors for success. ASCD.

# data[].attributes.body
In my quest to learn more about conversational maps, I stumbled upon this brief video. By writing a reflective/ highly emotional question, on various large sheets of paper throughout the room, all participants are able to have a voice and have several mini conversations through written dialogue. This strategy would lend itself best to a community of mostly emotionally intelligent people, who are able to have authentic conversations with their supervisors and colleagues.

Reference

Futureinsightmaps. (2010, November 11). Conversational Maps: an overview. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqwL4k2easU

# data[].attributes.body
This free online classroom/ office design tool allows users to create different layout options. Teachers- there are also a variety of templates which include a seating chart embedded into the layout. A user could utilize this tool if s/he is working on organizational skills/productivity strategies and systems.

Reference

Classroom layout templates | EdrawMax free editable. (n.d.). [OFFICIAL] EdrawMax Online: All-in-One Diagram Maker & Software. https://www.edrawmax.com/templates/tag/classroom-layout/

# data[].attributes.body
This article shares how administrators can support instructional coaches such as “communicating a shared vision,” determining the effectiveness of instructional coaching/generalization of shared instructional strategies by observing teachers, as well as providing professional learning for coaches. By refusing to consciously or subconsciously instill ICs as “fixers,” or evaluators, administrators can promote authentic buy-in to the coaching cycle.

Ippolito, J., & Bean, R. M. (2019). A Principal’s Guide to Supporting Instructional Coaching. Educational Leadership, 77(3), 68–73. https://doi-org.easydb.angelo.edu/https://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov19/vol77/num03/A-Principal’s-Guide-to-Supporting-Instructional-Coaching.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nothing halts coaching work more quickly than a neglectful or negative school leader. Our experience coaching literacy coaches and school leaders, coupled with the growing body of literature on the roles principals play in supporting coaching work (Bean et al., 2018), has taught us that behind every successful coach is a supportive principal. But what does it mean to be a supportive principal?

In schools where coaching thrives, principals intentionally establish and maintain a building-wide atmosphere that encourages the adoption of coaching mindsets, with all educators thinking and working as leaders, facilitators, designers, and advocates (Bean & Ippolito, 2016). To help principals accomplish this feat, we offer a summary of non-negotiables for supporting coaching work. Because our background is primarily in literacy, we refer to this type of coaching most often, but the following Dos and Don'ts are applicable to coaching in other disciplines as well.

Every school leader should read the International Literacy Association's 2017 Standards for the Preparation of Specialized Literacy Professionals (ILA, 2018). (This is especially true for working with literacy coaches, of course, but these guidelines can be helpful in application to other subject areas as well.) Based on decades of research, these standards clearly define and distinguish the knowledge, skills, roles, and responsibilities of literacy specialists, literacy coaches, and literacy coordinators. The standards also include indicators of what effective coaches understand and are able to do, which provide the basis for job descriptions and reflection tools that principals and coaches can co-construct. Lastly, the standards point to additional research-based resources about coaching that coaches and principals may wish to explore. If principals are to communicate their vision for and faith in coaching to the entire school, then a good place to start is familiarity with the roles and responsibilities outlined in the latest professional standards.

Principals must include coaches and teachers in constructing a theory of action for how coaching will support continual improvement. While states or districts sometimes specify coaching models, principals may have latitude in how coaches operate in each school. Co-construction and refinement of each school's coaching model is perhaps best achieved within a literacy leadership team structure. Such a group might, at minimum, include the principal, one or more coaches, one or more literacy specialists, and a teacher leader or special education representative.

Literacy leadership team conversations allow the principal to craft, solidify, and share an agreed-upon coaching model; articulate clear roles and responsibilities for coaches; and outline a menu of services. Coaching services might range from less-intensive relationship-building work to more-intensive classroom-based work that changes teacher practice (Bean & Ippolito, 2016).

An ideal coaching model will include time for coaches to support teacher leadership. The more opportunities that all school faculty have to serve as leaders and facilitators, the more that a culture of coaching can spread schoolwide. As several coaches shared with us, they have found that teachers are more likely to respond positively to coaching when teacher leadership was prioritized by the principal. When teachers are treated with respect for their knowledge and given opportunities alongside coaches to collaboratively analyze student work, co-create and co-facilitate meetings, and share their expertise with colleagues, the school's coaching model is strengthened.

Once a coaching model is crafted and shared, principals need to talk about that model continually-not just at the beginning of the year or when coaching is first established. They must reinforce the notion that coaching is one of the major mechanisms for everyone to improve their practice. "Have you chatted with the coach about this?" can be one of the common questions that principals ask teachers. Principals who stress communication about coaching consistently realign coaching work as student and teacher needs shift.

Sometimes we limit coaching effects by focusing too much on one-on-one work with teachers (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Principals can more effectively build a culture of coaching by working with coaches to create schedules that allow them to engage in one-on-one, small-group, and large-group coaching activities and address both individual and system needs.

For example, a principal might help establish a routine in which coaches in the school meet once every few weeks with grade-level teams or academic departments for a one-period planning session to discuss assessment results, student grouping possibilities, or a topic of interest, such as writing instruction or disciplinary literacy. These planning sessions provide coaches with opportunities to develop a work schedule for the next several weeks, mapping out with each group which teachers might want one-on-one support and which teachers might wish to connect with the coach as a group during future common planning periods. These one-on-one and group coaching sessions can be in addition to monthly whole-faculty professional learning sessions led by the coach.

To work effectively one-on-one, coaches need time and space to plan, reflect, and problem solve with teachers and to vary the ways in which they work. Some teachers do best if the coach models a strategy for them, while others might prefer to co-plan or even co-teach a lesson. At times, coaching cycles (pre-conference, observation, post-conference) may be useful, especially for intense one-on-one work.

Coaches who lead small groups effectively can create environments in which teachers interact frequently, build trust, and share a vision for student learning-all of which encourage a larger culture of coaching relationships among colleagues. Many different approaches to small-group inquiry are possible: professional learning communities, book study, data analysis, lesson study, and peer coaching. Small- and large-group coaching venues provide opportunities for collective problem solving, sense-making, and attending to overarching school goals (for example, improving instruction for English learners). In turn, this collaboration bolsters social networks and social capital, leading to improved student learning (Leana, 2011).

Principals can facilitate all of these collaborative planning and professional learning experiences by helping to schedule the meetings and communicating the available options to teachers. Principals can also encourage coaches to post their schedules publicly (in the office or other common spaces, or even online in a shared Google Doc) so that teachers can more easily connect with coaches.

To stay abreast of coaching work, principals should meet regularly with coaches and frequently observe teachers to understand how professional learning is changing classroom instruction. Coach-principal meetings shouldn't be sessions in which every grizzly detail of coach-teacher relationships is litigated. Instead, they should be broader conversations about whether and how overarching goals are being met. Which grade levels or content areas might need more or less coaching time, or different supports? What resources might the coach or teachers need to better meet student needs? What can the principal do to provide those resources?

In these conversations, principals should avoid asking coaches to report on individual teachers. Instead, they should strategically observe teachers and teams to make sense of how coaching is impacting classrooms. Google Docs and other online tools can be helpful in allowing busy principals and coaches to communicate even if they can't always meet in person. But don't allow too much time go by without these face-to-face connections. It is in these lulls that a coaching culture can drift or decline.

When we ask coaches to talk about their focus, we often hear answers such as, "I follow the teacher's lead," or "It depends on what the teacher needs to know." These are good starts, but decisions about focus are best made after teachers, coaches, and administrators have reviewed both the expectations for specific grades or content areas and data about what instruction is necessary for students to meet those expectations. By focusing on student needs (as opposed to exclusively focusing on teacher needs and preferences) there is a greater likelihood that coaching will better address systemic issues and lead to improved student learning (Sweeney, 2010). For example, if achievement test data indicate that students in 5th grade are having difficulties with academic vocabulary, coaches can work with both small groups and one-on-one to help teachers address this instructional need. Principals can help by asking coaches and teachers, "What do students need?" as opposed to asking, "How are teachers struggling?"

Principals supervise teachers, and coaches support teachers. Although it has long been acknowledged that coaching should be separate from supervising (Toll, 2006), in reality, there are plenty of instances of unintentional overlap. In some schools, coaches are asked to serve as formal or informal evaluators, which can prevent them from being viewed as colleagues who support teachers in a risk-free way. Principals need to reassure teachers that their work with coaches is confidential and not part of formal evaluations. If principals are observing in classrooms often, then there is less need to ask coaches to report about a teacher's performance. Ideally, supervision and coaching work should be clearly separated, with the principal supervising and the coach supporting.

Coaches cannot be effective if they aren't actively working with teachers. So, when coaches are asked on a regular basis to assume responsibilities such as scoring or administering tests or serving as substitutes, their work's effectiveness is lessened. Principals are sending a message to teachers that coaching is not a priority.

At times, it might be necessary for principals to assign coaches to non-coaching roles, especially when there is an immediate need in the school (such as covering for a sick teacher), but remember, it is difficult to determine the effects of coaching when coaches don't have time to coach.

It is tempting to ask coaches to work only with teachers who seem to be having difficulties with instruction or classroom management. We discourage this "fixer" approach to coaching for several reasons. First, if coaches are perceived as working only with those who struggle, other teachers may not reach out to coaches for support. Second, the coaching relationship becomes less about providing support for all teachers and more about remediation, in which only "struggling" teachers are assigned to the coach.

We once met an excellent teacher who told us that she never saw the coach in her school because she didn't need any support. But then she sighed and said she would have appreciated a chance to receive feedback from the coach to improve her teaching. Principals are missing out on a chance to improve learning for all their teachers-even the excellent ones-if they do not make it clear that coaching is for everyone in the school and that coaching conversations with teachers are confidential.

Coaches are continually seeking to improve their skills with ongoing professional learning opportunities. Effective coaches will, of course, read research and attend workshops or conferences, often on their own time. However, school districts can facilitate professional learning for coaches by establishing a coaching network that gives all coaches in a district opportunities to meet and discuss common dilemmas and brainstorm solutions. Coaches in one district told us that they would not have survived their first year of coaching without being able to problem solve with fellow coaches, and that their most effective professional learning came from these networking opportunities.

Some ways to provide these learning opportunities might be for coaches to participate in self-study or collaborative inquiry, in which they bring video or audio of a coaching conversation to share with the group, with the teacher's permission, of course (Ippolito & Pomerantz, 2013/2014). If there are too few coaches in the district, it might be possible for a regional support agency to establish such a network, with occasional in-person meetings, or a robust online component. The key is for principals to recognize the need for coaches to continue to learn and to support them by providing the necessary time and resources.

Although there are surely other Dos and Don'ts that principals or coaches might identify, these nine appear frequently across research studies and in our own work with coaches in schools. What is evident, whether we are working with a small cadre of coaches in a single district or involved in evaluating a large coaching initiative, is that coaches view the principal as critical to supporting coaching success and fostering a wider culture of coaching. As coaches have told us, they want principals who not only understand the value of coaching, but who support it as a priority for improving student learning in their school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Principal's Guide to Supporting Instructional Coaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nothing halts coaching work more quickly than a neglectful or negative school leader. Our experience coaching literacy coaches and school leaders, coupled with the growing body of literature on the roles principals play in supporting coaching work (Bean et al., 2018), has taught us that behind every successful coach is a supportive principal.