4.5 Article

Teachers' Perceptions of Instructional Coaches' Practices in Professional Learning Communities

期刊

SAGE OPEN
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/21582440221116103

关键词

instructional coaching; professional learning communities; instructional capacity; instructional coaches; teacher professional development

资金

  1. Project Massive Open Online Individualized Learning (MOOPIL)
  2. MOOPIL through National Professional Development Grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition Grant [T365Z170192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined Texas teachers' perceptions of instructional coaches' practices within professional learning communities (PLCs). The findings revealed that instructional coaches can employ two main types of practices to enhance PLC meetings. This research contributes to the field by providing empirical evidence on teachers' perceptions of instructional coaches' practices within PLCs.
In this study, we investigated Texas teachers' perceptions of instructional coaches' (ICs) practices that improve professional learning communities (PLCs) to enhance teachers' instructional capacities. The study's participants included 67 teachers from rural, urban, and suburban school districts across the state of Texas. They enrolled in a virtual professional development (VPD) module related to improving instruction in high needs schools. Data were collected from participants via an open-ended survey. To answer the study research question, we employed a qualitative phenomenological research approach. Findings indicated that teachers perceived ICs can perform two main types of practices that contribute to enhancing PLC meetings: (a) practices for creating a safe PLC learning environment and (b) practices in PLCs for enhancing teachers' instructional capacities. Our findings add to the literature providing the first empirical study in which researchers investigated teachers' perceptions about ICs' practices within PLCs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据