What stood out most is that 1:1 coaching has the greatest impact. That individualized space for reflection, feedback, and problem-solving is what actually shifts practice—not just exposure to tools or strategies (Lewis & DeSantis, 2024).

This connects directly to my current role. When I think about supporting EB students and students within MTSS, technology is not the goal—it is a tool that can be used intentionally to remove barriers when appropriate. While I am mindful of not over-relying on technology as students are still developing their ability to process, store, and communicate ideas, I do see the value when it is used with purpose. Coaching allows me to help teachers think through how to use technology in ways that support learning, whether that’s providing audio and visual supports for language development, creating opportunities for students to practice and respond using sentence stems, or using adaptive platforms to meet students at their level. In this way, technology can support differentiation without replacing strong instruction.

It also pushes my thinking around engagement and extension. When used thoughtfully, technology can create space for students to go deeper in their learning through choice, creation, and collaboration—rather than simply completing more work. That shift comes through coaching conversations that focus on designing meaningful learning experiences, not just using tools.

Looking ahead, this affirms that effective coaching is not about providing solutions, but about building teacher capacity through reflection, trust, and sustained support over time. If the goal is to strengthen Tier 1 instruction for all learners, then coaching must stay focused on helping teachers make intentional instructional decisions—including when and how technology should be used—based on student needs.

Lewis, K. D., & DeSantis, J. (2024). Exploring the role of instructional coaching in a shifting classroom technology landscape. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 1–29.

Mentoring tends to be more structured and relationship-based, providing ongoing guidance and support, while coaching is more targeted and focused on improving specific instructional practices. While the two can overlap, they serve different purposes in supporting teacher development (Hightower et al., 2021).

A key takeaway is that having a formally assigned mentor is linked to stronger instructional practices, particularly in classroom management, clarity of instruction, and opportunities for student thinking. These are all foundational to student engagement and the overall learning environment (Hightower et al., 2021).

The article highlights several instructional practices that support engagement and growth:

• Clarity of instruction – setting clear goals, explaining expectations, and connecting new learning to prior knowledge

• Cognitive activation – asking students to think critically, solve complex problems, and engage in discussion

• Classroom management – establishing routines and structures that maximize learning time and reduce disruptions

• Extended learning opportunities – incorporating projects and technology to promote deeper, student-centered learning

These practices work together. Structure and clarity create the conditions for learning, while cognitive activation and extended tasks push students to think more deeply and stay engaged (Hightower et al., 2021).

In my role, this helps me better define when I am mentoring versus coaching. Mentoring can support teachers in building classroom systems and confidence, while coaching is where I can focus more intentionally on instructional moves that increase student engagement and thinking. It also reinforces that if the goal is stronger Tier 1 instruction, the work has to move beyond support and into how students are actively engaging with the content.

Hightower, A., Wiens, P., & Guzman, S. (2021). Formal mentorship and instructional practices: A Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) study of US teachers. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 10(1), 118–132.

What is most relevant to my work is how that growth occurred. The PD model was not a one-time training—it was sustained, classroom-embedded, and supported through ongoing coaching and reflection. Teachers had opportunities to apply strategies, receive feedback, reflect, and refine their practice over time. That cycle is what led to meaningful change in instruction, not just increased awareness.

The areas of strongest growth—student interaction, application of learning, and engagement during lesson delivery—are the same areas I want to focus on in my coaching. These findings reinforce that improving instruction for diverse learners is not just about adding strategies, but about helping teachers design learning experiences where students are actively thinking, talking, and applying their understanding.

For the type of coaching I want to engage in, this study highlights the importance of staying grounded in:

• Ongoing support over time, rather than one-time conversations

• Classroom-embedded coaching, tied directly to real instruction

• Reflection and feedback cycles, where teachers can refine practice

• A focus on student engagement and interaction as indicators of effective instruction

  
  

This aligns closely with my goal of supporting Tier 1 instruction by helping teachers make intentional decisions that increase access and engagement for all students, especially EB and MTSS learners.

Piazza, S. V., Williams, C., Protacio, M. S., David, V., Tigchelaar, M., & Kuo, H.-C. (2020). Improving instruction for English learners: A professional development study using SIOP. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 9(3), 383–405.

A few points especially stood out to me. One was the idea of strategic parameters and how timing is everything in communication. Another was the importance of anticipating the audience’s response rather than only focusing on what we want to say. I also appreciated the reminder to communicate not only to the head, but also to the heart, because people tend to feel first and think second. One statement that really resonated with me was, “Don’t begin sharing facts until you frame it.” That idea immediately connected to teaching practices, PLC discussions, and instructional coaching conversations.

I can already see how these principles apply in education. The way we frame conversations with students, teachers, and colleagues often determines whether people become defensive, reflective, motivated, or disengaged. Effective communication is not simply about delivering information clearly; it is also about understanding the emotional and relational aspects of leadership. I would definitely recommend others take the time to view this series.

The Power of Communication Series

Power of Communication (Video), The: The Nine Principles of Effective Leadership Communication. (2012, January 1). Pearson.

Sok Mui Lim, Ramesh Shahdadpuri, & Ching Yee Pua. (2023). Coaching as an educator: Critical elements in a faculty development program. The Asia Pacific Scholar, 8(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2023-8-2/SC2802

I found this resource especially meaningful because it directly connects to the work I currently do in literacy intervention, PLC collaboration, and supporting teachers through instructional conversations. The article reinforced the importance of creating psychologically safe environments where educators feel valued, heard, and empowered rather than evaluated. The emphasis on reflective questioning, collaborative dialogue, relationship-building, and creating “time to think” strongly aligns with the coaching practices I want to continue developing in my current role.

As a future instructional coach, this article is especially applicable because it highlights how effective coaching cultures can strengthen teacher confidence, professional agency, and school-wide collaboration. The discussion of shifting from hierarchical leadership structures toward more partnership-based coaching conversations resonated with me deeply, particularly in the context of supporting teachers through change, instructional improvement, and professional growth. I also appreciated the article’s focus on transferable coaching skills such as active listening, reflective questioning, communication, and relationship-building, all of which are essential for effective instructional leadership.

Miller, J., & Cowley, J. (2026). An exploration into the links between coaching practices, coaching cultures, and the emergence of ecological agency in schools. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 24(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.24384/70db-4713

I found this resource especially valuable because it closely connects to the work I currently do supporting teachers, collaborating in PLC conversations, and helping facilitate reflective instructional discussions. The article reinforced the importance of building psychological safety and relational trust before meaningful coaching conversations can occur. I also appreciated the emphasis on moving away from judgment-based feedback toward evidence-based, reflective dialogue that encourages teacher voice, self-reflection, and professional growth.

As a future instructional coach, this article is highly applicable because it highlights the importance of coaching conversations that are collaborative rather than evaluative. The discussion surrounding active listening, reflective questioning, bias-aware feedback, and relationship-centered leadership aligns strongly with the type of instructional coach I hope to become. I was especially drawn to the idea that instructional leadership should focus on building teacher confidence, agency, and capacity rather than simply maintaining compliance. The article provides practical coaching frameworks and reflective tools that could be immediately applied within teacher observations, instructional feedback conversations, and professional learning communities.

Rizvi, F. T., & Marroquin, W. Y. (2026). From Evaluation to Collaboration: Building Trust Through Coaching-Centered Practice. Issues in Teacher Education, 35(1), 5–20.