Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders: A Multi-Method Investigation of Technology-Enabled External Assistance

Abstract

Background: Education reforms over the last several decades have relied heavily on external assistance to help schools increase capacity for improving outcomes, but investing in sustained outside coaching and support is increasingly difficult with diminishing federal, state, and district resources. One under-investigated possibility for maintaining affordable external assistance is to leverage new virtual technologies.
Purpose: This proof-of-concept study explored the potential of virtual coaching as a means for providing a cost effective, alternative model of ongoing external assistance to principals and leadership teams engaged in collaborative instructional improvement.
Intervention: Researchers adapted an existing assistance framework from an established instructional improvement model, with published studies of effectiveness in the traditional face-to-face context, and substituted virtual methods of coaching and support for ongoing monthly settings with school leaders.
Research Design: The study used a mixed-methods design, including video-recorded meetings, rubric-based coding and ratings, interviews, focus groups, and coaching logs to investigate implementation at three elementary and two middle schools during one full academic year.
Findings: Evidence suggests that the blended coaching model served as an adequate and cost-effective substitute for traditional face-to-face coaching at all five pilot schools. The virtual coaching format was particularly effective for conducting one-on-one planning meetings with principals and served as a catalyst to expand principals’ growth and ownership of the instructional improvement process. The authors also document several challenges that emerged related to limitations of human interaction in the virtual context.
Conclusions: Findings suggest that blended or virtual models are worth consideration as one potential solution for maintaining external support in the midst of diminishing fiscal resources. For schools with verified leadership and technology readiness, the availability of virtual models might translate to greater distribution of outside expertise across a wider number of schools, or enable some funds to be repurposed for other critical priorities. Findings also have implications for the design of external assistance programs and services. Evidence from the study highlights distinct benefits of the virtual format, which might enable more strategic distribution of monthly support, increase capacity building, and improve access to high quality expertise. Lastly, findings provide guidance for research and policy around technology-supported professional learning, pointing to the importance of aligning solutions with contexts, attending to sound quality and room configuration, and addressing challenges with the naturalness of interaction.

Full text

1
Teachers College Record Volume 117, 110303, November 2015, 48 pages
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders:
A Multi-Method Investigation of Technology-
Enabled External Assistance
BRADLEY A. ERMELING
Pearson Research and Innovation Network
TIMOTHY T. TATSUI
Pearson Research and Innovation Network
KELLY R. YOUNG
Pearson Research and Innovation Network
Background: Education reforms over the last several decades have relied heavily on external
assistance to help schools increase capacity for improving outcomes, but investing in sus-
tained outside coaching and support is increasingly difficult with diminishing federal, state,
and district resources. One under-investigated possibility for maintaining affordable external
assistance is to leverage new virtual technologies.
Purpose: This proof-of-concept study explored the potential of virtual coaching as a means for
providing a cost-effective, alternative model of ongoing external assistance to principals and
leadership teams engaged in collaborative instructional improvement.
Intervention: Researchers adapted an existing assistance framework from an established in-
structional improvement model, with published studies of effectiveness in the traditional face-
to-face context, and substituted virtual methods of coaching and support for ongoing monthly
settings with school leaders.
Research Design: The study used a mixed-methods design, including video-recorded meetings,
rubric-based coding and ratings, interviews, focus groups, and coaching logs to investigate
implementation at three elementary and two middle schools during one full academic year.
Findings: Evidence suggests that the blended coaching model served as an adequate and cost-
effective substitute for traditional face-to-face coaching at all five pilot schools. The virtual
coaching format was particularly effective for conducting one-on-one planning meetings with
principals and served as a catalyst to expand principals’ growth and ownership of the in-
structional improvement process. The authors also document several challenges that emerged
related to limitations of human interaction in the virtual context.
License purchased for distribution from Teachers College Record

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
2
Conclusions: Findings suggest that blended or virtual models are worth consideration as
one potential solution for maintaining external support in the midst of diminishing fis-
cal resources. For schools with verified leadership and technology readiness, the availability
of virtual models might translate to greater distribution of outside expertise across a wider
number of schools, or enable some funds to be repurposed for other critical priorities. Findings
also have implications for the design of external assistance programs and services. Evidence
from the study highlights distinct benefits of the virtual format, which might enable more
strategic distribution of monthly support, increase capacity building, and improve access
to high-quality expertise. Lastly, findings provide guidance for research and policy around
technology-supported professional learning, pointing to the importance of aligning solutions
with contexts, attending to sound quality and room configuration, and addressing challenges
with the naturalness of interaction.
Education reforms over the last several decades have relied heavily on
external assistance and expertise to help schools increase capacity for
improving outcomes. Studies of external assistance show mixed results,
but available evidence suggests that properly designed assistance mod-
els with appropriately qualified experts can lead to significant improve-
ments in school functioning, professional learning, and student achieve-
ment (Datnow & Honig, 2008; Finnigan, Bitter, & O’Day, 2009; Saunders,
Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009). Unfortunately, few schools receive ad-
equate assistance due to budget constraints and diminishing federal, state,
and district resources (Leachman & Mai, 2013).
One emerging possibility for maintaining affordable external assistance
is to leverage new virtual technologies. Preliminary studies have document-
ed the potential value of virtual technologies for blended forms of profes-
sional development, online learning communities, and coaching of indi-
vidual teachers (Hramiak, 2010; Israel, Carnahan, Snyder, & Williamson,
2013; Kidd & Murray, 2013; Owston, Wideman, Murphy, & Lupsheynyuk,
2008). However, no studies have investigated whether a virtual interface
can adequately facilitate sustained school improvement services such as
external coaching for principals and leadership teams.
This “proof-of-concept” study explored the potential of virtual coach-
ing as a means for providing a cost-effective, alternative model of ongo-
ing external assistance to principals and teacher-leaders at five case-study
schools. The research team adapted an existing assistance framework
from the Getting Results (GR) instructional improvement model, recog-
nized for its published studies of effectiveness in the traditional face-to-
face context (Saunders et al., 2009), and substituted virtual methods of
coaching and support for monthly site-based settings with school leaders.
The goal of this initial research was to investigate whether relying exclu-
sively on virtual coaching for these ongoing site-based interactions could

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
3
demonstrate fidelity of implementation for leadership settings compara-
ble to the research-tested face-to-face implementation support.
The following sections provide an overview of the background literature
on external assistance, a summary of relevant studies on the use of vir-
tual technologies, and a description of the study design and methodology,
including a detailed outline of the GR model and assistance framework.
We then present the results from the study, including some unexpected
findings regarding the potential benefits of virtual coaching in developing
principal capacity for instructional leadership. We also document several
challenges that emerged related to limitations of human interaction in
the virtual context and discuss fiscal, educational, and technological im-
plications for future research and policy.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH ON EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE
Emphasis on external assistance has increased significantly in the last sev-
eral decades with the convergence of policies and reform initiatives aimed
at increasing accountability for student performance. States and districts
are required to create and sustain systems of support for school improve-
ment, particularly for schools that have failed to make adequate yearly
progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). But even schools that are
meeting and exceeding standards are under increasing pressure to close
the achievement gap and improve results, especially as states prepare for
new college- and career-ready standards and corresponding assessments. This
combination of policies and demands has resulted in millions of dollars
invested in support and expertise from a variety of external organizations
to build school capacity for instructional improvement.
Key Terminology
There are numerous terms and labels associated with organizations pro-
viding external assistance, including technical assistance providers, pro-
fessional development organizations, vendors, university partners, and
school management organizations, among others. Honig (2004) offers a
helpful distinction between intermediary organizations and other types
of organizations providing various forms of external assistance. She de-
fines intermediaries as “organizations that occupy the space in between at
least two other parties . . . to mediate or to manage change for both those
parties” (p. 67). This distinction is particularly helpful for policymakers
and administrators who are responsible for identifying qualified providers
to assist with systemic reform. For the purposes of this article, since the

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
4
relevance of the study findings and implications is not limited to the role
of intermediary organizations, we use the more expansive term external
assistance to represent any organization or entity from outside the school
that is working to create and sustain conditions and capacity for improve-
ment of teaching and learning within the school.
Similarly, there are a variety of terms used to describe the individual per-
son providing external assistance, including coach, mentor, advisor, and con-
sultant. Many schools also have internal coaches or specialists—members
of the staff who provide content expertise and mentor individual teacher
development. In this paper, the term coach always refers to an external
coach who works with principals, leadership teams, and teachers to build
school capacity for instructional improvement (Mayer, Grenier, Warhol, &
Donaldson, 2013).
While there is significant variation in the labels organizations use and
types of assistance they provide, the unifying assumption behind exter-
nal assistance is that schools lack sufficient capacity to improve on their
own (Finnigan et al., 2009) and external organizations can infuse new
resources, knowledge, and perspectives that might expand existing hori-
zons of practice (Datnow & Honig, 2008; Huberman, 1995; Little, 2003).
In the best-case scenario, they also operate as a stabilizing influence on
school improvement efforts, providing just the right balance of support
and pressure to help school leaders stay focused on priorities and follow
through on commitments (Goldenberg, 2004; McDougall, Saunders, &
Goldenberg, 2007).
Summary of Mixed Results
Despite the substantial investment and broadly accepted rationale for ex-
ternal assistance, limited research exists regarding effectiveness of assis-
tance efforts, and the available evidence suggests mixed results (Datnow
& Honig, 2008; Finnigan et al., 2009). In one of the earliest studies, the
Rand Corporation evaluated nearly 300 local projects involving change
agents and found minimal or no effect of external assistance related to
federally funded programs (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). Several more
recent studies also provide a cautionary view of external assistance, draw-
ing attention to significant variability in external organizations’ capacity
to assist change (Smylie & Corcoran, 2006) and describing demands on
the individual coach or provider so onerous that only the most skilled and
dedicated can perform the role effectively (e.g., Poglinco et al., 2003).
Finnigan et al. (2009) summarize two studies in Chicago and California
and report that assistance provided to low-performing schools was “not
sufficiently targeted, coherent, or intensive to influence instruction and

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
5
student learning in a meaningful way” (p. 3). These findings corroborate
other research on professional development that suggests support and
training must be intensive, sustained over time, focused on specific con-
tent, and coherently integrated to yield a discernible effect on practice
(Desimone, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
On the other side of “mixed results,” a growing number of studies point
to the promise and potential of well-designed external assistance programs.
McLaughlin (1990) revisits the Rand change agent study cited above and
updates the analysis with new examples of effective external assistance that
combined well-articulated core strategies with adaptive implementation
methods. Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) summarize successful school
improvement efforts in Canada, England, and the United States where
“active” external partners providing just the right amount of “well-placed
pressure” have played a vital role in the change process (External Partners
section). Mayer et al. (2013) describe the successful outcomes of coaches
in the Together Initiative that used joint work, brokering between stake-
holders, and modeling practices to engage schools in productive cycles
of continuous improvement. And several researchers document exam-
ples of effective assistance partnerships between schools and universities
(e.g., Gallucci & Boatright, 2007; Goldenberg, 2004). Some of the recent
studies also demonstrate that under certain conditions with well-defined
models, external assistance can lead to significant improvements in stu-
dent achievement. In one example, Biancarosa, Bryk, and Dexter (2010)
published results of a four-year longitudinal study providing evidence that
one-to-one instructional coaching in the Literacy Collaborative (LC) con-
tributed to a 32% increase in student learning over baseline scores with a
value-added effect size of 0.43.
As part of a special issue in the Peabody Journal of Education devoted to
promises and pitfalls of external assistance, Datnow and Honig (2008) in-
troduce several examples of assistance relationships that illustrate how ex-
ternal partnerships might better support teaching and learning (pp. 323–
327). Honig and Ikemoto (2008) highlight the importance of “adaptable
assistance relationships” with an example from the Institute for Learning
at the University of Pittsburgh (pp. 328-363). Coburn, Bae, and Turner
(2008) describe the importance of managing complex “authority relation-
ships and status differentials” (pp. 364–399). Park and Datnow (2008) ex-
amine how Successful For All worked to collaboratively build knowledge
and connections across various levels and dimensions of the school sys-
tem while implementing a highly prescribed reform model (pp. 400-422).
Marsh, Hamilton, and Gill (2008) explore the combination of structured
assistance and accountability in the Edison Schools model and discuss im-
plications for achieving school improvement (pp. 423-458). And Supovitz

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
6
(2008) describes several examples, including a detailed illustration from
the America’s Choice model, to elucidate the need for increasingly sophis-
ticated partnerships that purposefully meld internal and external support.
Summary of Research on the GR Model
One final example of effective external assistance comes from published
research on the GR model, the assistance framework adapted for this study.
Building on Goldenberg’s (2004) case study of successful school change,
Saunders et al. (2009) conducted a five-year scale-up study implementing
this framework with nine Title I elementary schools serving more than
14,000 students. Achievement in the GR schools rose by 41% overall and by
54% for Hispanic students, with the most pronounced gains occurring in
the last three years of the study. Despite relatively identical baseline scores,
six demographically similar schools, selected at the beginning of the study
to serve as “controls,” had no comparable achievement gains over the same
five years. The overall effect size was 0.75, a magnitude considered in the
high–moderate to large range (Cohen, 1988). Schools in both groups
were challenged by histories of low achievement, large numbers of English
learners, and high percentages of students receiving free or reduced-price
lunch. An external evaluation during the last year of the study revealed that
schools in the experimental group had a sharper focus on academic goals
and achieve ment outcomes, stronger collective commitment, higher expec-
tations, and attributions for student achieve ment more focused on teach-
ers’ instruction rather than other external factors (McDougall et al., 2007).
Saunders et al. (2009) reported that the achievement gains and shifts
in school culture were obtained only after significant adjustments to the
implementation design and especially the assistance framework. These ad-
justments were introduced in the third year of the five-year project, and
included more fully specified protocols and a systemic approach to site-
based coaching, including increased onsite support to principals, teacher
leaders, and grade-level teams. The generalizability of these results is lim-
ited by the sample size and the possibility that effect sizes were elevated
by the “developer as implementer” effects (Borman et al., 2005; Lipsey,
2003). A large commercial education organization developed a program
based on this research and scaled it up to a broad network of schools,
including middle and high school partners. Scale-up findings and obser-
vations were reported in Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, and Goldenberg
(2009) and Graff-Ermeling (2007).
Overall, the research on external assistance is still inconclusive, but
findings from both ineffective and effective external assistance programs
point to some common themes and practices. Broadly stated, available

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
7
research suggests that external assistance should be guided by a clearly
specified framework, adaptive to local knowledge and circumstances,
focused on multiple levels of the school system, coherently aligned with
other improvement efforts (both internal and external), and strategically
distributed to maximize intensity of impact. These findings are consis-
tent with other educational research showing that more fully specified
and supported interventions typically produce better results (e.g., Bodilly,
1998; Desimone, 2002; Goldenberg, 2004).
These common themes and practices for external assistance provide
important direction for research, policy, and design of school and instruc-
tional improvement programs, but they also present a daunting challenge:
Investing in sustained outside support, even when highly effective, is dif-
ficult to prioritize in school budgets without a substantial ongoing funding
source. This creates a challenging predicament—increased accountabili-
ties and expectations for performance and capacity building that require
assistance from external partners, but diminishing funds and resources to
adequately address the problem (Leachman & Mai, 2013).
RESEARCH ON VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES
One emerging possibility for maintaining affordable external assistance
is to leverage new virtual technologies as an alternative method for sup-
porting school and instructional improvement efforts. While the use of
technology is rapidly expanding in teacher education and ongoing pro-
fessional learning, there is scant research available on the “forms and
effectiveness” of technology in these various settings (Kidd & Murray,
2013, p. 165). Most of the limited research is related to virtual learning
communities for pre-service and in-service educators or other profes-
sionals (Charalambos, Michalinos, & Chamberlain, 2004; Hramiak, 2010;
Matzat, 2013; Sallnas, 2005; Swinglehurst, Russell, & Greenhalgh, 2008),
and online or blended models of professional development in K–12 and
higher education (Berger, Eylon, & Bagno, 2008; Brooks, 2010; Fisher,
Schumaker, Culbertson, & Deshler, 2010; Fishman et al., 2013; Owston et
al., 2008; Pettit, 2005; Powell & Diamond, 2011). The scarcity of research
on virtual models of coaching and assistance is even more pronounced,
with a few studies focused on the use of virtual technologies for individual
teacher mentoring (Burgess & Mayes, 2008; Israel et al., 2013; Quintana &
Zambrano, 2013; Schrum, English, & Galizio, 2012). A 2013 special issue
of Professional Development in Education also highlighted other emergent
technologies being investigated for the support of teacher learning, in-
cluding “digital, Web 2.0, social media, mobile, and information technol-
ogy tools” (Kidd & Murray, 2013, p. 165).

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
8
In the area of virtual collaboration and online communities of prac-
tice, two articles were particularly instructive. Matzat (2013) describes the
mixed results of online virtual communities and reports findings from
a large-scale comparison study with Dutch teachers of secondary schools
showing positive outcomes associated with blended forms of collaboration
where online participants also interact in offline networks. Sallnas (2005)
conducted a study with 60 university students and administrative person-
nel comparing the different effects of text-chat, video, and audio confer-
encing on participant perceptions of presence and performance. Results
showed that people use fewer words per second in text and complete tasks
most efficiently with audio or video communication.
From the research on blended professional development (PD), Owston
et al. (2008) provide a helpful synthesis of three program evaluations. They
define blended learning or PD as a “combination of face-to-face experi-
ences, in which learners are co-located, with online experiences, where
learners are not at the same location” (p. 202). The blended learning pro-
grams included in the review showed limited impact on student learning,
but were effective at providing opportunities for job-embedded learning
and collaboration with a moderate influence on classroom practice.
Of the available literature on virtual assistance, the most relevant pa-
per we located was a proposed framework for virtual coaching of indi-
vidual special education teachers (Israel et al., 2013). The authors pro-
vide a detailed description of a model derived from research on “situated
cognition, media naturalness theory, and effective ongoing professional
development” designed to engage special education teachers in cycles of
reflective practice through remote observations and video conferencing
(p. 198). The article also provides practical guidance for implementation
and highlights important ethical considerations for the virtual context.
These preliminary studies highlight the potential of new technologies
to redefine the design and support of individual and collaborative profes-
sional learning. However, we found no significant literature on sustained
virtual assistance for school leaders and school improvement initiatives.
DESIGN AND PURPOSE
The principal goal of this study was to explore the potential of virtual
coaching as a vehicle for providing a cost effective, blended model of on-
going external assistance. Researchers documented the implementation
experience of five virtually supported pilot schools from a district where
several schools had previously implemented the face-to-face version of the
Saunders et al. (2009) GR model.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
9
DESCRIPTION OF GR MODEL AND ASSISTANCE FRAMEWORK
The original GR model design included a detailed framework to guide
external coaches in their support of school leaders to systematically im-
prove teaching and learning. The framework placed significant emphasis
on providing principals, leadership teams, and teacher workgroups with
predictable, stable settings for instructional inquiry combined with stra-
tegic assistance and field-tested protocols (Goldenberg, 2004; Saunders
et al., 2009). The primary protocol outlined specific inquiry tasks for
teacher workgroups to examine standards and assessments, identify
common student academic needs, jointly develop instruction to address
these needs, and analyze student work resulting from these jointly de-
veloped lessons. The model did not prescribe particular instructional
content, but rather focused on coaching leaders and teams to use the
inquiry protocol for ongoing study and improvement of practice related
to pressing student needs.
In this original “face-to-face design,” external assistance involved a
dedicated setting for each role group in the system (see Figure 1) and a
certified coach who was responsible for shepherding and sustaining the
work of each setting toward the final goal of helping teacher workgroups
improve instruction and student outcomes. Each month, the coach facili-
tated a Principal Planning Meeting (PPM; labeled “A” in Figure 1) at indi-
vidual sites to debrief implementation progress, help principals plan for
leadership team meetings, and strategize on needed assistance for work-
groups and facilitators. The coach attended the monthly Instructional
Leadership Team meetings (ILT; labeled “B”) to work alongside the prin-
cipal and provide additional training on the inquiry protocol. The coach
also targeted specific teacher workgroup meetings each month based on
emerging needs (represented by dotted line to “C”). The ILTs included
teacher-facilitators from each workgroup and other school-based instruc-
tional specialists.
In addition to these regular site-based settings, the coach supported two
district-level settings involving leaders across participating schools. The
first was a monthly Regional Administrator Meeting (labeled “D”) where
district leaders and principals convened to discuss progress, receive addi-
tional leadership training, and share strategies across schools. The second
was the annual summer and midyear institutes (labeled “E”) for principals
and facilitators to receive initial training on the program framework and
later discuss emerging instructional findings.

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
10
Figure 1. Settings and assistance framework for Saunders et al. (2009) GR model
D
E
Summer and Mid-Year
Institutes for Principals
and Facilitators
Monthly
Regional
Admin Meeting
A
BC
Results:
Student
outcomes
Assistance from External Coach
Monthly
Instructional
Leadership Team
(
ILT
)
Meetin
g
Teacher
Workgroup
Meetings
(
2-4
p
er month
)
Monthly Principal
Planning (PPM)
with Individual
Schools
Classrooms
Monthly Principal
Planning (PPM)
with Individual
Schools
Monthly
Instructional
Leadership Team
(ILT) Meeting
Teacher
Workgroup
Meetings
(2-4 per month)
Classrooms Results:
Student
outcomes
Monthly Regional
Admin Meeting
Assistance from External Coach
Summer and Mid-Year
Institutes for Principals
and Facilitators

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
11
DESCRIPTION OF BLENDED MODEL
The new “blended model,” specifically designed for this pilot study (see
Figure 2), retained the face-to-face training for institutes and monthly
Regional Administrator Meetings, but schools relied exclusively on vir-
tual, synchronous interactions (bidirectional video streams and screen-
sharing functionality) for the coach’s ongoing assistance to individual
principals and ILT settings. The coach’s monthly strategic visits to work-
groups were also replaced by site administrators (principals, assistant
principals, and instructional specialists if available) taking on expanded
responsibility for this role, which was previously shared by the coach and
principal in the original GR model. The combined reduction of travel
time and associated costs enabled by these modifications, plus the re-
duction of additional time typically allocated for arrival, pre- and post-
meeting conversations, and onsite preparations, was predicted to yield
an estimated 50% reduction in costs for external assistance services.
RESEARCH GOALS
This pilot project focused primarily on evaluating implementation qual-
ity and was intended as a modest proof-of-concept study to determine
whether the blended approach justified additional research. The initial
hypothesis being tested was whether a blended model of support, fo-
cused on assistance to principals and ILT members and relying exclusive-
ly on virtual coaching for ongoing site-based interactions, could dem-
onstrate fidelity of implementation for leadership settings comparable
to research-tested face-to-face implementation services. The researchers
operated under the tentative assumption that if these most proximal
measures of implementation quality (stability and productivity of PPM
and ILT) were comparable to previous measures of implementation with
face-to-face services, then one might also expect comparable results in
subsequent distal outcomes (productivity of workgroups, improvements
in teaching and learning) as previously established with the original
face-to-face design. Future studies could then further investigate these
distal links in the chain of effect. The specific research questions (RQs)
for this initial study were the following:
RQ1: To what extent do virtually supported leadership teams demon-
strate fidelity of implementation of the GR instructional improvement
model comparable to that of a traditional face-to-face implementation?
RQ2: What specific implementation strengths and challenges emerge
that are unique to the virtual assistance framework?

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
12
Figure 2. Settings and assistance framework for blended services model
D
E
Monthly
Regional
Admin Meeting Summer and Mid-Year
Institutes for Principals
and Facilitators
A
BC
Results:
Student
outcomes
Assistance from External Coach
Monthly
Instructional
Leadership Team
(
ILT
)
Meetin
g
Teacher
Workgroup
Meetings
(
2-4
p
er month
)
Monthly Principal
Planning (PPM)
with Individual
Schools
Classrooms
Assistance from External Coach
Summer and Mid-Year
Institutes for Principals
and Facilitators
Results:
Student
outcomes
Classrooms
Teacher Workgroup
Meetings
(2-4 per month)
Monthly
Instructional
Leadership Team
(ILT) Meeting
Monthly Principal
Planning (PPM)
with Individual
Schools
Monthly
Regional
Admin Meeting

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
13
RQ3: What are some of the pivotal factors and suggestions for effective
implementation of the blended model from the perspective of the study
participants?
RQ4: To what extent were virtual coaching services provided within
the design constraints of the blended model (projected hours for prepa-
ration and delivery of PPM and ILT)?
METHOD
PROFILE OF CASE-STUDY DISTRICT AND SCHOOLS
This project took place in Treston School District (pseudonym), a mid-
sized metro-suburban district in the northwest region of the United
States with about 30,000 students and 52% on free–reduced lunch.
Treston had just completed a successful second year of implementa-
tion in 2011–2012 with the original GR model design, receiving face-to-
face support services from a certified coach (employed by the external
scale-up organization). Despite positive results in the previous two years
and collective commitment from school and district leaders, financial
constraints required significant reductions across the district, including
the pending discontinuation of implementation support. These circum-
stances created a mutually beneficial context for investigating effects of
the blended services model described in the previous section.
SCHOOL SELECTION
The study focused on two “first-year implementing schools” with no pre-
vious experience and three “continuing schools” entering a third year
of implementation. This design enabled researchers to compare results
of virtual support in two distinct contexts: (a) schools and principals
with no prior implementation experience, and (b) schools with substan-
tial background that would likely be candidates for a gradual release of
responsibility.
In each of the previous years at Treston, the GR-certified coach worked
closely with district staff to guide the selection of participating schools
based on level of need (i.e., persistently low achievement scores) and
“readiness-to-benefit” profiles generated from the standard program
readiness instrument. The instrument included seven dimensions: ad-
ministrator capacity, facilitator capacity, content expertise, potential for
buy-in, experience with collaboration, available settings, and timing/
bandwidth. Each dimension was rated on a scale from 1 to 4 (limited, bor-
derline, adequate, strong). To qualify for implementation, schools needed

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
14
a minimum score of 20 across all seven dimensions and at least a rating
of 3 (adequate readiness) for the “administrator capacity” dimension. The
district staff and coach used these same criteria to recruit and select the
two first-year implementing schools for this project.
For continuing schools, a total of five schools were entering the third
year of program implementation in 2012–2013, all with adequate readi-
ness scores. At two of these schools, however, the district assigned new
principals with no prior implementation experience, so the research
team excluded these schools from the selection process. The other three
continuing schools had the same principals for each of the previous two
years and agreed to participate in the study. Table 1 lists the final se-
lection of pilot schools and corresponding readiness data. The sample
included three K–6 elementary schools and two middle schools (grades
7–8). All school names are pseudonyms.
Table 1. Trenton School District Blended Model Pilot Schools
School
Pseudonym
Grade
Levels
First Year or
Continuing
Title I
Percentage
Readiness Score
(out of 28)
Technology
Capacity
Kite Elementary K-6 First Year 52% 22 (Adequate) Verified
Dawn Elementary K-6 First Year 43% 20 (Adequate) Verified
East Elementary K-6 Continuing 78% 22 (Adequate) Verified
Sun Middle 7-8 Continuing 46% 25 (Strong) Verified
Rise Middle 7-8 Continuing 64% 26 (Strong) Verified
The certified coach assigned to work with these schools was the
same individual who had supported the face-to-face implementation in
Treston over the previous two years. She had a close working relation-
ship with the district and particularly the principals at the three continu-
ing schools. She was a former teacher and director of curriculum and
instruction with a strong background in facilitating teacher professional
learning. We used the generic term coach or the pseudonym “Amber”
throughout the paper when referencing the coach’s role.
TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY
In addition to the standard readiness criteria, all five schools participated
in a pre-implementation site visit and verification process for “technology
capacity” specifically designed for the blended implementation model.
Each school was required to have a reliable Internet connection, access to
a meeting room with a multimedia projector, an adequate computer-aided
or phone speaker system for communication between the coach and ILT
members, and individual laptops with built-in Web cameras.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
15
Each participating school accessed the virtual meetings through
Adobe Connect Pro, a Web conferencing interface used to facilitate bi-
directional video streams and screen-sharing functionality. School site
participants could view a live-streamed image of the coach in a small box
on the right of the screen while viewing the coach’s shared desktop, slide
presentations, or other files on the left side of the screen. The coach
could simultaneously view side-by-side live-streamed images from each
of the participant webcams. The software also included options for pub-
lic and private chat sessions, polling the audience, virtual whiteboards,
and buttons for expressing agreement/disagreement or to signal a ques-
tion, but these features were not utilized. Principals and leadership team
members learned how to access Adobe Connect Pro during their first
site-level meetings. No specific training was provided to the coach or
school participants on the various software functions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
This study used a multiple method research design with concurrent tri-
angulation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Data collection included
digitally recorded audio and corresponding transcriptions of ILT focus
groups and principal and district administrator interviews; digitally re-
corded video and field notes from selected ILT meetings; and document
retrieval. The research team also collected data from “ILT global rat-
ings” conducted twice a year by the certified coach as part of standard
evaluation processes. In addition, the coach agreed to keep a detailed
spreadsheet log of hours and field notes across each month for all five
project schools and corresponding virtual settings.
Data analyses included qualitative analysis, rubric-based scoring, and
systematic coding of data from various sources. Researchers analyzed
data during and after the nine-month data collection period using a
constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Each stage of
data analysis informed the next stage, as patterns and themes gradu-
ally emerged and subcategories began to develop. We used triangulation
to corroborate findings from multiple data sources, across individuals,
time, and settings. We searched for alternative explanations contrary to
the emerging themes and categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994), and
used member checks to obtain feedback on emerging findings at strate-
gic intervals (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
16
Analysis Process for ILT Global Ratings
For the two previous years in Treston, as part of routine evaluation and
feedback services for the standard face-to-face model, the coach assigned
midyear and end-of-year ILT global ratings to each school using an estab-
lished rubric (see Appendix A) that included a dimension for stability of
the setting and dimensions for each of the three standard segments of the
ILT (debriefing, training, and planning). Every December and June, follow-
ing a rating calibration exercise with program leaders, coaches assigned
each school ILT an implementation score on a scale from 0 (not function-
ing) to a maximum score of 4 (thriving) for each of these four dimensions.
As a general rule, average functioning ILTs typically received a rating of 2
(functioning), and schools that were continuing with the model for multi-
ple years were expected to demonstrate incrementally higher scores each
year, or at least maintain the same level of implementation status.
To increase the rigor of the ILT ratings for this study and document
the rationale behind each of the scores, a member of the research team
joined the coach for both rating sessions in 2012–2013 and preserved
these sessions with an audio recorder. The researcher asked the coach to
provide descriptions of each school’s ILT without referencing any scores
or rubric categories. Both the coach and researcher then independently
scored the ILT and shared ratings to check for reliability, repeating this
process for all midyear and end-of-year ratings. Overall inter-rater agree-
ment for exact agreements equaled 93% using the formula: number of
agreements (37) divided by number agreements plus disagreements
(37+3) multiplied by 100. Overall inter-rater agreement for exact plus
adjacent agreements equaled 100% using the same formula. To assign a
final score for the three ratings that differed, the researcher and coach
discussed rationale and established a consensus rating, erring on the
side of the lower score.
Once all ILT ratings were established, the researcher conducted a
comparative analysis between these 2012–2013 scores and ILT global rat-
ings from the previous two years in Treston when schools were receiving
standard face-to-face services. For the two first-year schools, researchers
compared scores with corresponding ratings from the first year of imple-
mentation at eight other schools in Treston in 2010–2011. We also inter-
viewed the assistant superintendent to gain a district-level perspective
on this comparison. For the three continuing schools, researchers com-
pared scores with corresponding ratings from the same three schools
in the previous academic year (2011–2012) and included open-ended
questions in the principal interviews to document their analysis of ILT
implementation status.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
17
Analysis Process for ILT Video Episodes
To further triangulate and strengthen reliability of these analyses, two
members of the research team reviewed all 10 ILT videos (two from each
school) and used a slightly modified version of the ILT rubric to inde-
pendently assign ratings for each video episode across the four ILT di-
mensions. The videos enabled researchers to look for major examples
of agreement or discrepancy with the global ratings, and follow up with
the coach, principal, and focus groups to probe for additional expla-
nation or detail. Researchers compared scores to check for agreement,
established a consensus rating where scores differed, and repeated this
process for all 10 video episodes. Overall inter-rater agreement for exact
agreements again equaled 93% (37 divided by 40 multiplied by 100) and
exact plus adjacent agreements equaled 100%. To assign a final score for
ratings that differed, researchers discussed rationale and established a
consensus rating, erring on the side of the lower score.
Analysis Process for Focus Groups and Interviews
For each of the 21 focus groups and interviews, a member of the re-
search team listened to the full audio recording, reviewed field notes
from the event, and studied and coded the transcript. After completing
the first several transcripts, the researcher established a coding scheme
to track and highlight emerging themes and patterns using a Web-based
document management system. Appendix B provides a list of codes and
illustrates the transcription coding process. After assigning the appropri-
ate code to a given segment of text, the researcher added comments in
the margin and then copied and pasted a hyperlink of that excerpt into
a master spreadsheet organized with coding categories listed as column
headings and all schools and transcripts listed by rows. The researcher
also marked particular hyperlinks that represented uniquely illustrative
excerpts for a corresponding category or theme. The final spreadsheet
included 328 coded hyperlinks, allowing for convenient analysis of pat-
terns across transcripts. The researcher used this spreadsheet to write a
draft summary of major findings for each school and a draft summary of
major findings for the two subgroups: first-year and continuing schools.
Analysis Process for Coach’s Spreadsheet Log
From September through June, the coach kept a detailed log of all hours
spent on preparation and delivery of support services for PPMs and ILT
meetings at each of the five schools. At the conclusion of the school
year, the research team created a summary spreadsheet for hours logged

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
18
and compared these totals to the original projected hours and design
constraints to determine whether the virtual support services were as
cost-effective as hypothesized. The research team also conducted phone
interviews with the coach to explore additional questions that emerged
from analysis of the logs and to confirm or invalidate prominent patterns
and findings.
RESULTS
RQ1
To what extent do virtually supported leadership teams demonstrate fidelity of im-
plementation of the GR instructional improvement model comparable to that of a
traditional face-to-face implementation?
Finding 1
Compared to previous first-year Treston schools in 2010–2011 receiv-
ing standard face-to-face services, the two first-year pilot schools receiv-
ing virtual coaching through the blended model demonstrated slightly
higher overall ILT implementation ratings. As shown in Table 2, midyear
ratings were similar to the comparison group with lower scores for de-
brief but higher scores in the stability and study dimensions. End-of-year
ratings were the same or higher than the comparison average across all
dimensions, with the most noticeable increase across the year in the level
of principal engagement for the debrief segment of meetings. Ratings by
the research team for corresponding midyear and end-of-year video epi-
sodes were equally strong and noticeably higher for the plan dimension.
During the interview with the assistant superintendent, when asked
about the comparison between 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 first-year
schools, she used similar language to characterize the implementation:
I was pleasantly surprised to see how especially our new schools
really took to [the virtual support]. . . . In my observations I’d
say they would be a little ahead of those schools. . . . But I would
say most definitely they’re not behind. No, they would be equal
or maybe slightly in front of. (Treston Schools assistant superin-
tendent interview)
These district-level observations were consistent with findings from
ILT global ratings and researcher-scored video episodes, providing three
sources of evidence that ILTs at both new schools were generally function-
ing well with virtual support and implementing at comparable levels to
previous first-year schools.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
19
Table 2. Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) Ratings for Treston Pilot Schools with Virtual Coaching Support
Schools
Midyear ILT Global Rating
(Coach & Researcher Consensus Scores)
Midyear ILT Video Episode
(Research Team Consensus Scores)
Stability Debrief Study Plan Avg. Stability Debrief Study Plan Avg.
Previous 1st-year Treston schools avg.
(2010–11)
2.50 3.00 2.88 2.50 2.72
First-year schools avg. (2012–13 virtual pilot) 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.50 2.63 3.00 2.50 3.00 4.00 3.13
Kite Elementary 3 2 3 3 2.75 3 2 3 4 3.00
Dawn Elementary 3 2 3 2 2.50 3 3 3 4 3.25
Continuing schools previous year avg.
(2011-12)
3.00 3.00 4.00 2.33 3.08
Continuing schools avg. (2012–13 virtual
pilot)
3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.75
East Elementary 3 4 4 4 3.75 3 4 4 4 3.75
Sun Middle 3 4 4 4 3.75 3 4 4 4 3.75
Rise Middle 3 4 4 4 3.75 3 4 4 4 3.75

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
20
Schools
End-of-Year ILT Global Rating
(Coach & Researcher Consensus Scores)
End-of-Year ILT Video Episode
(Research Team Consensus Scores)
Stability Debrief Study Plan Avg. Stability Debrief Study Plan Avg.
Previous 1st-year Treston schools avg.
(2010–11)
2.50 3.00 3.00 2.25 2.69
First-year schools avg. (2012–13 virtual pilot) 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.00 3.50 3.50 4.00 3.50
Kite Elementary 3 4 3 3 3.25 3 4 4 4 3.75
Dawn Elementary 3 4 3 3 3.25 3 3 3 4 3.25
Continuing schools previous year avg.
(2011–12)
3.00 4.00 4.00 2.67 3.42
Continuing schools avg. (2012–13 virtual
pilot)
2.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 2.33 3.67 4.00 4.00 3.50
East Elementary 2 4 4 4 3.50 1 4 4 4 3.25
Sun Middle 3 4 4 4 3.75 3 3 4 4 3.50
Rise Middle 3 4 4 4 3.75 3 4 4 4 3.75
Note. Midyear global ratings were based on patterns observed during the monthly ILT setting from September to January (five total
meetings at each school). End-of-year ratings represent 10 ILT settings from September to June. Video ratings were based on single
ILT episodes in winter and spring.
Table 2. Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) Ratings for Treston Pilot Schools with Virtual Coaching Support
(continued)

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
21
Finding 2
Compared to their own ILT ratings one year earlier (2011–2012), the
three continuing schools showed steady progress in overall quality of
implementation while transitioning to virtual support services (see Table
2). All scores and dimensions for both rating periods were the same
or higher than the previous year with the exception of a lower end-of-
year rating for stability at East Elementary. (This was due to a recurring
schedule conflict for the kindergarten facilitator that was approved in
advance. The principal agreed to meet separately with this facilitator to
cover ILT meeting content.) Scores showed the most noticeable increase
for the plan segment of meetings and specifically with the public shar-
ing of agendas through electronic distribution, confirmed by evidence
from coach’s logs, meeting records, and ILT correspondence. This was
partially an artifact of the virtual support format since electronic distri-
bution was not emphasized in previous years with the traditional face-
to-face model. Ratings by the research team for corresponding midyear
and end-of-year video episodes were equally strong, reflecting only mi-
nor patterns of variation from the global ratings.
As represented in Table 3, qualitative analyses from principal inter-
views at the continuing schools offer a similar characterization of the
modest growth pattern for ILTs, including more advanced content,
deeper thinking, and application of the instructional improvement pro-
cess, as well as more intentional planning and electronic distribution
of meeting agendas. Along with the global ratings and video episodes,
these excerpts suggest ILTs at all three continuing schools were generally
thriving with virtual support and steadily progressing with implementa-
tion in comparison to previous years.
Table 3. Principal Descriptions of ILTs at Three Continuing Schools
Participant Title Interview Excerpt
East Elementary
Principal
P: We have three parts to the ILT and that’s training, debrief, and
agenda planning. In the past two years, the training has really been
Amber training the process. . . This year it’s about the quality of work
in each step and helping the facilitators engage with what does that
mean. So yesterday, at the ILT, they were engaging in the process
of analysis for [lesson planning] with some specific look-fors. That
engagement was at the highest level that I’ve seen it.
P: The agendas . . . That is new and that is an effort towards transpar-
ency and an effort towards seeing what other people are doing in
their teams and it was not a conscious level of the ILT, that’s where
we’re going to build that authenticity of exchange of information or
exchange of tips.

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
22
Participant Title Interview Excerpt
Sun Middle
Principal
P: I mean, because the difference that I see is that my facilitator’s ca-
pacity is increasing as well as the instructional capacity building-wide,
which is enabling us to go deeper. . . .
P: You look at where we were and now you look at where we are now,
where you look at the richness of dialogue that’s happening . . . it’s a
completely different place and it’s because we had a structure and a
vocabulary to talk about instruction, and it shaped where we’re going
to go.
Rise Middle
Principal
P: Usually I’m the one who sets the stage and goes over the agenda
and reminds teachers about their agenda planning time. And myself
and my assistant principal walk around to see if there’s questions—
what are they doing, kind of monitor if there’s anything that we think
that they should add or those kind of things—during those first 20
minutes. And I usually facilitate the debrief. . . . And then usually,
at that point, [the coach] might ask some probing questions and
follow-up questions because, especially now, she’s not been in the
[workgroup] meetings. . . . And then it’s been even more important
for them to send the agendas. Every time they send out an agenda to
their team, they cc her so she can see what the agendas are looking
like. And then after we’ve done the debrief, we shift to the training
piece and she really leads the training—or we co-lead, but more often
she’s leading the training piece.
RQ2
What specific implementation strengths and challenges emerge that are unique to
the virtual assistance framework?
Finding 1
The virtual assistance format proved to be highly conducive for one-on-
one principal planning meetings. Both the coach and all five principals
reported that the technology functioned as a more than adequate substi-
tute for face-to-face communication in this context with no disruption to
meeting objectives or discernible loss in productivity. All five principals
used the bidirectional video streaming as part of Adobe Connect Pro
and accessed audio by telephone or through the computer-aided micro-
phone and speakers. The coach used the screen-sharing functionality to
display documents, slide presentations, and Internet content, and the
principals viewed the content on their office computers or by using a
multimedia projector. Several principals described the virtual format as
an enhancement for this setting, enabling more convenient access to
electronic files, research articles, calendars, and other information that

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
23
could readily be exchanged and viewed without disrupting the flow of
conversation. The Dawn Elementary principal explained,
So the principal planning meetings . . . on the phone and on the
computer . . . that works really well . . . sometimes if one person
has to travel to go to a meeting you’re like oh man, I don’t have
that with me, but she’s in her office and I’m in mine so we can
grab whatever, anything that we can think of, we can pull up
right then. (Dawn Elementary principal interview)
Two principals also commented on the flexibility of the virtual meet-
ings, which allowed them to conveniently reschedule as needed or con-
duct meetings from home outside of normal school hours.
Finding 2
The virtual coaching format served as a catalyst to expand principals’
leadership role in the ILT and accelerate principals’ growth and owner-
ship of the instructional improvement process. This was a prominent
theme across all five principal interviews and ILT observations, as well as
follow-up discussions with the coach and interviews with the assistant su-
perintendent. Specifically, participants described how the coach’s physi-
cal absence in the ILT necessitated a substantial shift in the principal’s
role. The coach was still virtually present, providing assistance, teaching,
and support through the software interface, but the principal could no
longer defer to the coach as the lead facilitator for the meeting, and ILT
members looked to the principal to meet that need (see assistant super-
intendent comments in Table 4).
As observed in videos and documented in the coach’s field notes,
principals’ new responsibilities included preparing the setting, reading
the room, checking for understanding, attending to nonverbal cues, fa-
cilitating discussion, charting ideas, and playing a more active role in
each segment of the ILT. These expanded responsibilities created for
principals a sense of urgency for growth and fostered even greater ap-
preciation for the monthly PPM as a critical setting for ILT preparation,
personal coaching, and professional learning.
The most significant example of this coaching and capacity build-
ing in the PPM emerged in the form of the “ILT dry-run”—a term that
the coach and principals used throughout the interviews (see Table 4).
During an early planning meeting in November, one of the first-year
principals requested an additional virtual meeting with the coach to con-
duct a dry-run of the leadership team meeting and intentionally prepare
for her role in that setting. The first dry-run was so impactful for the

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
24
principal that the coach began encouraging this approach as a standard
routine for the other schools. As reflected in Table 4, all five principals
responded favorably, openly acknowledging their need for more prepa-
ration and learning prior to the ILT. This evolved into an additional
monthly setting and regular part of the virtual support routine from
November to June.
It should be noted that facilitating growth in principal leadership capac-
ity is one of the explicit goals described in the GR model research and a
primary objective of the monthly PPM in the traditional face-to-face de-
sign (Goldenberg, 2004; McDougall et al., 2007). As such, it is likely that
some of the growth observed and documented by the researchers resulted
from the natural progression of the principal coaching process and was
not unique to the virtual model. However, the distinctly new innovation
of the ILT dry-run as part of the virtual support routine, the overall vol-
ume of evidence captured from multiple role groups, and the striking
examples of growth from first-year principals suggest that these changes in
principal capacity were uniquely accelerated by the virtual context.
Finding 3
Some teacher-workgroup facilitators (members of the ILT) reported a
more regimented approach and loss of personal connection with the
coach during ILT meetings. Several team members at two continuing
schools, in particular, commented on the contrast from previous years
where ILTs were highly interactive with more informal dialogue, chart-
ing on poster paper, and opportunities for brainstorming or feedback.
One facilitator from the Sun Middle focus group explained, “I feel like
the personal part of it’s kind of been removed. And now she’s just kind
of the screen shot person. . . . It’s definitely taken the personal part out
of it.” The following exchange from the Rise Middle focus group is an-
other example:
T5: Which, again, I think kind of takes away from what we did
have first year is we had like a—
T1: A sounding board.
T5: . . . Yeah, exactly, it was probably a lot more helpful; whereas,
this is so much more regimented . . . (Rise Middle focus group)
Others reported a sense of distance in their relationship with the coach,
including limited opportunities for small talk before or after meetings,
no eye contact or ability to read nonverbal cues, minimal opportuni-
ties for private conferencing, and a general awkwardness with commu-
nication caused by the speakerphone or computer-aided audio system.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
25
Table 4. Interview Descriptions of ILT Dry-Run and Expanded Principal Leadership Role
Participant Title Interview Excerpt
Treston Assistant
Superintendent
R: So, when you think about a principal building their capacity and taking more ownership, do you think there’s a bigger
effect of that outside of these specific settings? Or do you think it affects their leadership in the building in other ways?
AS: Yeah, I do. I think that it gives them a sense of confidence. I mean, they started something brand new. And, yes, they
have the support and it’s virtual. But their team is looking to them to be the experts. The level of conversation I’m hear-
ing in our [Regional Administrator Meeting] from our brand new folks is much more specific, much higher than just cog-
nitive thinking and really reaching out. I mean, I believe that the schools that were in it for a couple years, it took about a
year and a half before I’m seeing the kind of level of conversation with our brand new folks. It was like from day one. So
taking that ownership and that leadership, I think that it has helped them build that sense of confidence. . . .
R: So for your principals with previous experience what differences, if any, have you noticed about their leadership and
participation in the process this year compared to previous years? I know we’ve talked about this a little bit. We’ve talked
more about the newer ones, so what about the ones that are . . . ?
AS: The ones that are returning, there’s three of them. . . . So I really saw that, not only did they continue to grow, but
it was that they knew that that was their coach and she could take them to the next level. The [one principal] I really do
think [has] gotten a little bit more confidence and a little bit more ownership, and having to do the things, be a little bit
more focused in the meetings because . . . your folks at the table are looking at you to be the leader. . . . So I think that
the principal planning meetings have been much more specific and focused. And I know for that particular principal . . .
that has truly been a growth. . . .
Dawn
Elementary
Principal
P: In the case of this last time, she also sent out the idea when you review this, we can do a dry-run, do you want to do
that? So I looked at it and I said yeah, I want to, I can pull out some time Friday afternoon. So then we took about an hour
Friday afternoon, dry-runned the agenda for the ILT last night and made a couple of changes. One was notably around
how do we do the success criteria for the ILT members and how do we write that and what jives with what I’ve been doing,
then she made modifications. Then I spent some time printing out any handouts that we’re going to use with the team, I
spend time of the logistics of just getting that ready and getting that set up. So that’s pretty much the sequence of getting
prepped for an ILT. It takes a considerable amount of time, I think, but it’s resulting in a really thoughtful process that’s
really attached to the outcomes that we’re looking for.

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
26
Participant Title Interview Excerpt
Kite Elementary
Principal
P: I’m getting more involved in that piece than I was at the start because I was like a deer in the headlights. My point
was, “And hereee’s Amber.” And that’s the advantage I think to the dry-run, too, is that comfort level and getting more
involved. And then just my understanding of the process a little more. So it is, they’re starting to re-shift with me being
more of the talker and her a little less.
P: But much more efficient and as part of that dry-run when you have the questions that you practice, too, it felt very pro-
ductive. And I don’t want to waste my ILT’s time—my facilitator’s time. So I did feel much more prepared with that.
East Elementary
Principal
P: In the past two years, Amber did most of the work, in terms of bringing materials and doing the training and the
debriefing and the leading. This year, knowing that it’s our third year and knowing that it is the expectation that the
principals do step up and co-train or take the lead, the PPM has been very instrumental about where do we zero in on the
training and then what do teachers need.
P: . . . so we spend an hour together talking about what that PowerPoint should look like, then she thinks about it and
puts some things together. Then we do a 30-minute dry-run.
Sun Middle
Principal
P: . . . at the end there’s always this summary. “OK, so let’s remember, we’re going to do this and then we’re going to do
this and then we’re going to do this and we’ve got to remember to hit on these key points.” And I usually build my ILTs
around a PowerPoint because that helps me focus. . . . And we’re starting to really use the notes section in the PowerPoint
to remember these are the key points that we want to hit or this—and this last one, I actually went through and said, “OK,
in this discussion I want to make sure that we hit on these three points. I anticipate these misconceptions or I anticipate
this being problematic and so we need to remember how to do that.”
P: . . . I think that the other strength that I see is [the virtual format] created the conditions for me to take a stronger
leadership role in the ILT.
P: I am much more the facilitator of the meeting now, and that has been a transition. Originally when we started Amber
was—OK, I was supposed to be running the meetings but, let’s be honest, it was Amber that was taking the lead on this
because I just didn’t know what I was doing. And that has transitioned to a place where now I take the lead and, because
Amber’s not in the room, it really forced me to take on that role. It would have been really easy to remain having Amber
take the lead on this because she’s got the respect of the teachers, she’s got this deep knowledge of the process, she’s
great with her presentations, but, because she’s not in the room, that’s not a possibility…
Table 4. Interview Descriptions of ILT Dry-Run and Expanded Principal Leadership Role (continued)

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
27
Participant Title Interview Excerpt
Rise Middle
Principal
P: But what’s happened this year is, because Amber’s not present, I’ve facilitated more of the training, which I think she’s
intentionally turned that over to me. I’m a little bit uneasy at times about like I’m not sure if I really know how I’m going
to facilitate this. And even sometimes in the moment what we had planned, I then even adjust on the fly and she just rolls
with it. . . . So I think that is one adjustment that’s definitely happened in Year 3. Amber still facilitates, but I think I’ve
been asked to step up more in terms of facilitating that actual professional development part.
P: And what we started to do now—we have it scheduled this morning—is we do dry-runs. So we now do dry-runs for ILT
usually the week of or a couple days before so we make sure that we’re all on the same page, especially if we’re doing
something that we haven’t done before.
R: And that leads into my next question, so great segue. How does that dry-run contribute to your leadership of the ILT?
P: It’s like a pacifier; it helps me feel a lot more secure in terms of what we’re doing, especially if it’s something new. And
so it helps me know where I’m going to step in, where I’m going to step back, all of those kinds of things in terms of
facilitating the actual ILT piece.
Table 4. Interview Descriptions of ILT Dry-Run and Expanded Principal Leadership Role (continued)

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
28
Facilitators consistently emphasized that these limitations did not inhibit
the productivity or success of the ILT, but did leave some members feeling
less validated and energized about the work.
The coach and principals recognized these limitations and changes in
the tone of the setting and brainstormed ways to generate more personal
interaction through the virtual interface. The primary adjustment they
made was incorporating individual phone conferences into the planning
segment of ILT meetings. The principal and coach inventoried specific
facilitator needs and anticipated which individuals might benefit from
more personalized assistance. During the planning segment of the ILT,
as facilitators were working independently on their agendas, the coach
would take turns calling on these individuals to pick up the phone re-
ceiver (disabling the speaker function) and engage with them privately
around specific challenges or questions. Facilitators had a mixed re-
sponse to this innovation. Some reported that it worked well and helped
meet their personal need for feedback and clarification. Others report-
ed they felt self-conscious and uncomfortable speaking on the phone
in the middle of the room while colleagues pretended not to eavesdrop
on the conversation. Principals noted that groups became more com-
fortable with this routine over time and felt that it satisfied some of the
concerns, but several ILT members still voiced a need for more personal
interaction with the coach.
Finding 4
The coach struggled to find sufficient touch points for engaging with
facilitators and staying attuned to emerging needs and challenges of
teacher workgroups. This was partially due to the loss of personal inter-
action in the ILT (described in the previous section), but was primarily
a consequence of the pared down, economical design of the blended
model, which focused exclusively on the PPM and ILT, eliminating the
coach’s role in strategic workgroup visits traditionally included in face-
to-face services. In previous years at Treston, the coach would select at
least two workgroups per month at each participating school and sit in
on meetings to listen and provide assistance while principals targeted
different workgroups. This enabled the coach to build closer relation-
ships with facilitators and gain a firsthand perspective on the needs and
dynamics of various teams. In the virtual model, the principal and other
administrators inherited full responsibility for these workgroup visits,
while the ILT and two institutes became the coach’s only touch points
with facilitators.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
29
As a result, the coach relied heavily on her debrief with the principal
in the monthly PPM to check on the status of each team, but she also
experienced some limitations with this singular data point. Principals
would sometimes overlook important details or privilege observations
and information that reinforced their beliefs or expectations, and the
coach would later hear less polished reports at the midyear institute or
during an individual phone conference with a facilitator. Comments
from a few focus group members at continuing schools reflected a simi-
lar concern, describing the absence of a teacher advocate in the process
who helps the principal maintain this balanced perspective.
I think with Amber here, too, she was a different set of eyes and
ears that’s not in the building. [P] sees everything that he wants
to see . . . and he’s going to put everything together because he
just sees this big whole picture, where Amber really just focused
on the [inquiry process] and what was important. . . . And so
when we said a concern, it clicked with her . . . and then I think
she really does have his ear in a different way than we do . . .
she has that voice that he’s going to hear that’s different from a
teacher voice. (Rise Middle focus group)
Several other facilitators from continuing schools talked about missing
the workgroup visits and recalled feeling a sense of support and valida-
tion when the coach had direct knowledge of their specific workgroup
circumstances. They explained that virtual support was certainly “much
better than no support” but would always prefer the face-to-face model if
presented with both options.
The coach implemented several strategies to compensate for this loss
of workgroup interaction, including requests for more detailed agendas
as well as more frequent emails to facilitators with follow-up comments
and questions. This provided her with a window into their workgroup
plans and meeting content, but was not always well received or under-
stood by facilitators. Some members viewed the requests and emails as
“I’m in trouble” or “I’m not doing something right” and did not perceive
these communications as a way to stay connected and receive support
(Sun Middle focus group). Other members viewed them as helpful and
appreciated the guidance and feedback: “I think it’s great, the support
that I got in person is there . . . and she’s e-mailing, she’s easily accessible
by e-mail for questions” (East Elementary focus group).

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
30
RQ3
What are some of the pivotal factors and suggestions for effective implementation
of the blended model from the perspective of the study participants?
Finding 1
Pre-implementation site visits should include more thorough analysis
and verification of phone or computer-aided audio solutions. While all
five schools reported relatively few technological complications, sound
quality was the one major challenge during the first ILT meetings at
each site. ILT members could hear the coach easily but the coach had
difficulty hearing the rest of the group. This became frustrating for par-
ticipants who felt uneasy about yelling across the room, as reflected in
the following exchange from East Elementary:
T2: For me, it impacts the length of my answer, I don’t want to
shout for 15 minutes or if I do say something, and then she’s
like, “Can’t hear you.” . . . I’ll edit what I repeat because I don’t
want to go into depth again or I don’t remember exactly what I
said.
T1: And there’s a little more having to identify who the speaker
is each time for Amber’s benefit. (East Elementary focus group)
Whether using a high-quality speakerphone or computer-aided audio
solution designed for Web-conferencing, participants discovered it was
critical to test sound quality under authentic conditions of a large group
discussion and verify that sound was clear on both ends. They also found
it was equally important to practice room configuration and phone
placement, verify length of all electric and audio cords, and make sure
all members in the room could view both the phone and screen while
facing the same direction.
Finding 2
The first ILT at each school should begin with a training module on
guidelines and procedures for productive virtual meetings. As noted in
the comments below from the Dawn Elementary principal, the coach
and nearly all participants agreed that a more intentional and formal
training session was necessary so that that group members could relax
with the new system and routines and shift their focus to the meeting
content.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
31
. . . you have to build in a little extra time in the beginning to do
that . . . to figure out what’s our basic setup and how’s it going
to work for us . . . To know that part of the process is going to be
learning how to help [the coach] facilitate the group, and bring
up things so that [the coach] hears them and can ask the ques-
tions or help them with anything that they might miss . . . in how
to keep the flow going. (Dawn Elementary principal interview)
Researchers recorded the following training topics and suggestions for
the first ILT as they emerged from focus groups, interviews, and obser-
vations: learning to log-in and access the Web-based software; finalizing
the room configuration and phone placement; adjusting laptop camera
angles; practicing procedures for announcing who is speaking and learn-
ing to project voices with appropriate volume; learning procedures for
individual phone chats during agenda planning; practicing use of inter-
active software features; and establishing expectations and procedures
for Web-based sharing of work products and agendas.
Finding 3
The first PPM should include detailed training and a dry-run on effec-
tive practices for the principal in leading the virtual ILT. Building on
the concept of the dry-run described in previous sections, the coach and
principals agreed that a rehearsal of the first ILT was essential to clarify
roles, walk through guidelines and procedures, anticipate questions and
obstacles, and ensure a smooth start to the ILT’s first experience with
the virtual interface. The assistant superintendent also emphasized this:
I know that we tested it out before but when it came down to
people being in the room it sometimes didn’t work. And some
of it was our own technology . . . But I would say that making
sure that everybody knows what that is and having, “Here’s a
best practice.” And working with the principals upfront—what
are best practices about that—will help those meetings go much
smoother. (Treston Schools assistant superintendent interview)
In addition, the coach communicated in both logs and interviews sev-
eral other training priorities for successful principal leadership of ILTs
and corresponding settings, ranging from interactive leadership skills,
such as charting and reading nonverbal cues during ILT meetings, to
specific tips on what to listen and look for during strategic workgroup
visits.

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
32
Finding 4
The summer and midyear face-to-face institutes were critical relation-
ship-building opportunities that enabled more meaningful and authen-
tic interactions in the subsequent virtual settings. During the summer
institute, all facilitators and principals from the Treston participating
schools met for two days to receive training and support to launch work
for the upcoming academic year. The veteran facilitators received train-
ing from Amber (the certified coach assigned to Treston) while the first-
year facilitators received training from another certified coach assist-
ing with the event. During the midyear institute, the event was divided
into separate dates for middle and secondary schools, enabling Amber
to work directly with all participants. Those facilitators who, during the
summer event, did not have extended time with Amber commented on
how much more meaningful and connected the virtual support felt in
the second half of the year as a result of having a direct face-to-face ex-
perience to build mutual trust and solidify the relationship. The focus
group excerpt below captures these sentiments from the facilitators at
Kite Elementary.
T: We were saying too that it seems like . . . it’s more comfort-
able now that we had that follow-up institute and we met her in
person.
R: Yeah, because you hadn’t met her before, right?
T: We’d never met her.
T: And really, the ILT right after that, I’m like, “That was so
much, like, better.” It was more comfortable just having had that
face time with her. It made a huge difference . . .
T: Yeah, so it was a new process and new person and the awk-
wardness of yelling into the phone to someone that you don’t
[know], and they think you’re a weirdo. (Kite Elementary focus
group)
The participants emphasized that the summer institute should follow
a similar structure, enabling all participants to begin the year in a direct
face-to-face setting with their assigned coach.
RQ4
To what extent were virtual coaching services provided within the design con-
straints of the blended model (projected hours for preparation and delivery of PPM
and ILT)?

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
33
Table 5 presents a breakdown of the average hours per month of vir-
tual coaching services at each school as recorded by the coach from
September to June. The hours are separated into two categories: overall
time spent in preparation and overall time spent in delivery of services
for the PPM and ILT. The table also provides a comparison between the
total average hours per month across all schools and the average projected
hours per month predetermined as part of design constraints to test the
hypothesized cost savings associated with the blended model.
The record of hours shows that the coach was able to stay well within
these projected guidelines while providing virtual services to the five
Treston schools. The total average per month for actual preparation
(1.91 hours) was less than half of the projected average (4.00 hours)
and the total average per month for actual delivery of the PPM and ILT
(3.95) was nearly the same as the projected average (4.00). The overall
total average for assistance services across the five schools (5.86 hours)
required approximately two hours less per month on average than the
total projected average (8.00) outlined in the design constraints for the
blended model. There was no significant variation in the distribution of
hours across the five schools.
These totals included the addition of the ILT dry-run, initiated in
November as part of the regular virtual support routine. Since travel was
no longer a project constraint, the coach was able to flexibly accommo-
date this adjustment by reducing the length of the regular monthly PPM
and freeing up time for the separate dry-run session without increasing
the total allotment of coaching hours.
We also analyzed the distribution of virtual coaching services spread
out over each month of the academic year. Predictably, the hours for
preparation and delivery were noticeably higher during the first month
of implementation, nearly one hour more than the monthly average in
Table 5. Average Hours per Month of Virtual Assistance Services
School Preparation Deliver y (PPM, ILT) Total
Kite Elementary 1.72 3.67 5.39
Dawn Elementary 1.93 3.92 5.85
East Middle 2.06 3.86 5.92
Sun Middle 1.92 4.40 6.32
Rise Middle 1.94 3.87 5.81
Total Average 1.91 3.95 5.86
Projected Average 4.00 4.00 8.00

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
34
both categories of service. From October to June, the distribution settled
into a stable pattern with minimal fluctuation and only a slight dip in
hours for both the middle and end of the year.
DISCUSSION
In this study we investigated the use of virtual coaching as an alterna-
tive method for ongoing external assistance to instructional leaders. Our
principal goal was to test whether a blended model of support could
demonstrate fidelity of implementation for leadership settings compa-
rable to a research-tested face-to-face model of support services. We also
wanted to better understand the specific strengths, challenges, and piv-
otal factors that characterized implementation of this virtual assistance.
Several interesting findings emerged. Evidence from both rubric rat-
ings and qualitative analyses suggests that the blended model served as
an adequate and cost-effective substitute for supporting principals and
leadership teams at the five Treston schools. These findings applied to
both continuing schools with a prior history of face-to-face assistance,
as well as first-year implementing schools. Through interviews, focus
groups, and video recordings of leadership settings, we discovered that
the virtual coaching format was particularly effective for conducting
one-on-one planning meetings with principals and served as a catalyst
to expand principals’ growth and ownership of the instructional im-
provement process. We also documented some challenges participants
reported, including the lack of personal connection with the coach dur-
ing ILT meetings and insufficient touch points for the coach to stay at-
tuned to the needs of teacher workgroups. Participant suggestions for
future implementation focused on more thorough pre-implementation
site visits, dedicated training modules on productive virtual meetings,
and opportunities to build face-to-face relationships prior to launching
virtual assistance.
LIMITATIONS
As with all case-study research, these findings are bounded by the specif-
ic context of the study population (Merriam, 1998). The results provide
rich description of the blended model implementation at five purpose-
fully selected Treston schools but are not predictive of future outcomes
with other schools or districts. Among the study limitations, one obvious
issue is that the findings only describe the implementation experience of
elementary and middle schools. We know from research and direct expe-
rience with other projects that implementation at high schools involves
an additional layer of complexity and challenge.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
35
Another important limitation was the coach’s extensive prior experi-
ence and close relationships with Treston schools. It is plausible that par-
ticipants at continuing schools would have responded less favorably to
the virtual implementation if supported by a coach without this history
of local knowledge and personal connections. It is also plausible that the
first-year schools uniquely benefited from the prior experience of the
district and coach, giving them a head start on implementation when
compared to first-year Treston schools in previous years. Future repli-
cation studies should explore these and other variables across a wider
range of implementation contexts.
A third limitation of the study is the narrow focus on proximal out-
comes of implementation fidelity. This liability was clear at the outset.
Researchers operated under the tentative assumption that if the most
proximal measures of implementation quality (stability and productiv-
ity of ILT) were comparable to previous measures of implementation
with face-to-face services, then one might also expect comparable re-
sults in subsequent distal outcomes (productivity of teacher workgroups,
improvements in classroom teaching, and increased student learning)
as previously established with the original face-to-face design. These as-
sumptions require further investigation to experimentally verify the dis-
tal links in the chain of effect.
IMPLICATIONS
In this final section we explore the study findings as they relate to three
main categories of application to research and policy: (1) general impli-
cations for maximizing limited fiscal resources; (2) specific implications
for external assistance of school reform; and (3) specific implications for
the use of emerging technologies to support professional learning and
school improvement initiatives.
Maximizing Limited Fiscal Resources
The study findings suggest that blended or virtual models are worth con-
sideration as one potential solution for maintaining school support in the
midst of diminishing federal, state, and district resources. Circumstances
will vary depending on the level of experience, severity of need, and
type of services being provided, but the example reported here showed
substantial reduction in costs related to time spent on preparation and
delivery of services. Overall, the average hours logged for monthly advi-
sor services were approximately two hours less than projected for vir-
tual support (see RQ4), suggesting that the model might allow for even
more savings than the 50% reduction estimated during initial design

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
36
and planning meetings with district leadership. For projects where air
travel is required, the savings would increase exponentially for airfare,
lodging, meals, and other related costs. These efficiencies can trans-
late into greater distribution of limited resources and expertise across
a wider number of schools, or enable some funds to be repurposed for
other critical priorities. Additional research is needed to conduct a more
granular analysis of these potential cost savings and compare results with
other implementation contexts.
We suggest this possibility of “more cost-effective external assistance”
with the important caveat that the choice to adopt a virtual delivery
method should also be preceded by careful analysis of baseline readiness
conditions, especially the readiness of principals and other school lead-
ers who will be the primary recipients of virtual support. The researchers
have collected relevant data from other virtually supported schools not
included in this study, which suggest that a principal who is hesitant or
unwilling to accept help from outside partners will struggle to succeed
in any context, but may struggle even more within the context of a vir-
tual coaching format. Along with the established readiness dimensions
described in the method section, we would add to this list a pre-imple-
mentation assessment of the school leader’s willingness and capacity to
work with technology and reliably maintain communication.
In addition to general school and leadership readiness, an equally im-
portant aspect of readiness conditions (as noted in RQ3, Finding 1) is
the verification of technological capacity during a pre-implementation
site visit. Participants in this study recommended a dry-run to verify
sound quality, length of cords, room configurations, and other details
prior to the first virtual meeting.
If the above conditions are satisfied, a school might be a candidate for
virtual support, particularly for one-on-one planning or coaching ses-
sions where we observed few obstacles and even some distinct advantages
over face-to-face settings such as flexibility in scheduling and immediate
access to electronic resources. Other settings, such as leadership teams,
involve additional challenges related to maintaining adequate interper-
sonal interaction, but may still warrant consideration if sufficient strate-
gies are in place to mitigate these limitations.
External Assistance for School Reform
The results of this study offer insightful contributions for research and
policy on effective practices of external assistance, specifically as it relates
to intensity of assistance, capacity building of principals, and quality of
coaching expertise. The findings are applicable for assistance providers

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
37
and coaches at the district and state level, as well as other organizations
or intermediaries providing external expertise and assistance for schools.
First of all, the study builds on and extends findings from previous
research indicating that external assistance must be of high intensity
to build educator and organizational capacity (Finnigan et al., 2009;
Supovitz & Turner, 2000). These studies and others typically define in-
tensity as the quantity of technical assistance days spent in the school.
Finnigan et al. (2009), for example, describes unsuccessful projects
where external providers, constrained by busy schedules and travel limi-
tations, would typically deliver their allotted time to each school in full-
day increments, focusing on a variety of tasks including observations,
feedback sessions, and distribution of instructional materials all on the
same day.
This study offers a new perspective and definition of intensity as it ap-
plies to external assistance. The evidence from the PPMs suggests that
not only the volume of hours invested, but more importantly, the strate-
gic and purposeful distribution of those hours determined the intensity
of support. A few hours of technical assistance carefully distributed in
smaller increments (PPMs and ILT dry-runs) across several weeks proved
to yield a significant impact on principals’ capacity to effectively lead
ILTs. The virtual format was the catalyst for this innovation, enabling the
coach to flexibly adapt monthly PPMs and establish a new routine of two
shorter meetings without any implications for time or travel. We believe
the same approach could be utilized in a variety of external assistance
contexts, leveraging the benefits of virtual coaching models to increase
the number of touch points and feedback loops that are possible in a
monthly assistance cycle while also alleviating some of the pervasive con-
straints of the coach’s travel and scheduling that are counterproductive
for schools.
The study findings also provide new insights related to research and
practice around capacity building for school leaders. The presumed
goal of external assistance is not only to provide expertise and resources
to schools beyond what they can provide for themselves, but also to in-
crease the capacity of personnel to carry on productive work during and
beyond the period of intensive support. More often than not, this has
proven difficult to accomplish. Even in cases where assistance programs
are successful, the majority are not sustained and few schools or districts
are able to institutionalize reform (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Fullan,
2009). Goldenberg (2004), for example, describes a successful univer-
sity–school partnership that helped a struggling school and principal in
an underprivileged community move from lowest performing to highest
performing in the district over a period of six years. The last chapter in

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
38
the book, however, provides a sobering account titled “Freeman fizzle”
describing how fragile successful change can be without an appreciation
for how to keep it alive.
While it is still not clear whether the capacity-building efforts taking
place in Treston will have a lasting impact on the principals and schools
if and when the assistance is removed, the preliminary findings regard-
ing expanded principal leadership roles in the context of virtual support
(RQ2, Finding 2) introduce some intriguing possibilities and potential
benefits. The assistant superintendent, coach, and principals articulated
that the virtual coaching format served as a catalyst to accelerate princi-
pal growth and capacity for leadership of the ILT, primarily because they
could no longer defer to the coach and take a back seat in the process.
As one principal commented, “It would have been really easy to remain
having Amber take the lead on this because she’s got the respect of the
teachers, but, because she’s not in the room, that’s not a possibility . . .”
(Sun Middle principal interview). Perhaps this is one reason why previ-
ous capacity-building efforts have often failed. Principals have not had
sufficient opportunity to learn new responsibilities, gradually transition-
ing to the “driver seat” with a mentor on standby who is ready to assist
and steady the wheel.
Research indicates that unless combined with other systemic efforts to
institutionalize reforms, it is unlikely that this kind of capacity building
alone will have a lasting effect on school change (Fullan, 2009; Mayer
et al., 2013). Nonetheless, capacity building is one critical aspect of the
larger solution and the unique structure of the virtual model may offer
some unexpected advantages for supporting leadership development. At
minimum, we believe it is worth exploring as a gradual-release strategy
for schools demonstrating multiple years of consistent implementation
and improvement.
A third implication for external assistance relates to the challenge of
ensuring high-quality expertise. Previous studies of both the Saunders et
al. (2009) GR model and other assistance programs point to the impor-
tance of combining a well-specified framework with skilled coaches who
can flexibly tailor and adapt the framework to local circumstances and
needs, making nuanced adjustments that are critical to building coher-
ence and getting results (Mayer et al., 2013). External coaches with these
qualifications are in limited supply and the challenge is even greater
when the project requires hiring and placing coaches within specific geo-
graphical boundaries (Finnigan et al., 2009; Israel et al., 2013). This can
restrict the pool of candidates significantly and contribute to a problem
we have observed in many isolated regions of the United States, where a
small contingent of under-qualified local consultants perpetually rotate

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
39
through the system working as independent contractors for different
reform organizations.
The virtual model expands the flexibility of how personnel are se-
lected and deployed, increasing the possibility of access to high-quality
experts regardless of geographic location. At the time of this writing, for
example, the certified coach working with the Treston schools (Amber)
launched a new assistance relationship with several schools in another
state. Rather than relying on an inexperienced new hire in the local area,
which is often necessary with a face-to-face coaching design, the school
leaders are immediately benefiting from her advanced knowledge and
experience with the GR model. Additional studies and projects might
continue to explore whether high-quality expertise through a virtual for-
mat might produce better results than face-to-face services from a less
qualified provider.
Technology-Supported Professional Learning
The findings also have implications for research and policy on the use of
emerging technologies to support professional learning and school im-
provement. In the findings section (RQ3, Findings 1–4), we highlighted
specific suggestions from the study participants for future consideration
of virtual implementation projects. We now expand this discussion to
focus on two broader implications: aligning technology solutions with
different types of educational contexts, and increasing the naturalness
of human interaction within a virtual assistance framework.
This study is one of the first that we know of to investigate the use
of technology-facilitated assistance for a sustained school improvement
initiative. As such, it also introduces some useful distinctions between
sustained external assistance services delivered to co-located school-
based teams, and other types of technology-enabled professional learn-
ing such as virtual coaching engagements with individual teachers, or
virtual professional development (PD) delivered to groups or communi-
ties working across schools in different geographic areas. Each context
has a different audience and different set of goals that influences the way
technology might be used to support learning and work.
For example, when delivering PD in single or multiple episodes to a
mixed community of educators across diverse geographic regions, the
primary goals might be facilitating learning and building a network of
relationships. These goals might be supported through a Web-based so-
lution where all members individually access a portal to participate in
training content, join discussion forums, complete training exercises,
and collaborate with colleagues across geographic boundaries. When

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
40
mentoring individual teachers, the goal might be to facilitate critical
changes in practice through personalized cycles of reflection and feed-
back that could be accomplished through remote classroom observa-
tions and virtual bug-in-ear technologies, followed by individual reflec-
tions sessions via videoconferencing (Israel et al., 2013).
By contrast, when providing sustained coaching services for a co-locat-
ed team implementing a site-based improvement initiative, the primary
goals are to build capacity and help team members adapt and apply pro-
cesses to solve specific problems for a shared local context. These goals
might be addressed through a hybrid meeting design (like the study de-
scribed here) where the virtual coaching format provides the team with
access to new expertise and resources, but the face-to-face component
for local members enables the principal to maintain a strong physical
presence and leadership role. This design allows the group to simultane-
ously leverage the benefits of virtual coaching as well as the face-to-face
context they conveniently share.
This is not to say that a co-located team could not benefit from the
selected use of other virtual formats where individual members log on
from their own personal computer at home or in the classroom, but it
does draw attention to the important choices involved when aligning
technology solutions with the specific goals and contexts of different
participant groups. We believe these distinctions could also help classify
the research literature and guide the design of future studies or innova-
tion projects.
One final technology-related implication is the challenge of increasing
personal connections and the naturalness of interaction within a virtual
assistance framework. Two of the more prominent obstacles reported
in this study were the truncated personal interactions between coach
and facilitators and the coach’s shortage of touch points for staying at-
tuned to needs of teacher workgroups. While neither of these limitations
prevented the leadership teams from accomplishing goals or produc-
tively completing work during the immediate timeframe of the study, the
regimented tone and decreased energy level reported by participants
(and observed in ILT videos) are important warning signs that we be-
lieve could eventually lead to fading interest, decreased commitment,
and diminished quality of implementation over time. Kock (2005) ex-
plains the psychology behind this concern, describing the importance
of maximizing media naturalness. He indicates that “a decrease in the de-
gree of naturalness of a communication medium leads to the following
effects in connection with a communication interaction: (1) an increase
in cognitive effort, (2) an increase in communication ambiguity, and (3)
a decrease in physiological arousal” (p. 124).

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
41
The coach and principals worked to adapt and incorporate some addi-
tional solutions such as switching off the speakerphone to use the phone
line for individual conferences, and placing heightened emphasis on
electronic distribution of meeting agendas and work products. These
solutions improved the coach’s access to information for each team but
were not always perceived by facilitators as natural interactions that en-
hanced their sense of connection or validation.
Future projects will need to incorporate a broader range of strategies
for virtual interaction, some of which are readily available but were un-
der-utilized in the current design. One option would be to explore ways
of using video chats on mobile devices for individual conferences during
ILT meetings, instead of having team members use the central phone
line. Another option to consider would be experimenting with a few
virtual workgroup visits each year using the same technology interface
as the ILT, allowing the coach to strategically join selected meetings like
the original face-to-face design. One virtual workgroup visit per school
per month would not require a substantial increase in cost or time.
With exciting advances in technology, other options will undoubtedly
emerge that could dramatically enhance the naturalness of interactions
and frequency of touch points between coaches and school personnel.
Investigating ways to strengthen these virtual connections will be a key
priority, enabling coaches to more fully engage and facilitate change
with each role group in the school community and helping members
work together toward collective improvement goals.

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
42
REFERENCES
Berger, H., Eylon, B., & Bagno, E. (2008). Professional development of physics teachers in
an evidence-based blended learning program. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
17(4), 399–409.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, volume
VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A., & Dexter, E. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy
collaborative professional development on student learning. Elementary School Journal,
111(1), 7–34.
Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from the New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing
designs to multiple schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers,
B. (2005). Success for all: First year results from the national randomized field trial.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22.
Brooks, C. (2010). Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty-first century:
Blending online communities of practice and face-to-face meetings in instructional and
professional support programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
47(3), 261–270.
Burgess, H., & Mayes, A. (2008). Using e-learning to support primary trainee teachers’
development of mathematical subject knowledge: An analysis of learning and the impact
on confidence. Teacher Development, 12(1), 37–55.
Charalambos, V., Michalinos, Z., & Chamberlain, R. (2004). The design of online learning
communities: Critical issues. Educational Media International, 41(2), 135–143.
Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider
outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Datnow, A., & Honig, M. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching
and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external
assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 323–327.
Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1/2), 183–204.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.
Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O’Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through
external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 17(7). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ844020.pdf
Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., Culbertson, J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Effects of a computerized
professional development program on teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(4), 301–312.
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., &
Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional
development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(5), 426–438.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2),
101–113.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
43
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Leading in tough times: New lessons for districtwide
reform. Center for Development and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cdl.org/
resource-library/articles/leading%20in%20tough%20times.php
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the
learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based
inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553.
Gallucci, C., & Boatright, B. (2007, February). Gaining traction through professional coaching:
A partnership between the center for educational leadership and highline school district (Interim
Research Report 2). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwcel/resources/papers.html
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goldenberg, C. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and learning.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Graff-Ermeling, G. (2007). Building coherence: The role of an externally supported, site-based
leadership team in sustaining settings for instructional improvement. Santa Monica, CA:
LessonLab Research Institute.
Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education
policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts:
The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.
Hramiak, A. (2010). Online learning community development with teachers as a means of
enhancing initial teacher training. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 47–62.
Huberman, M. (1995). Professional careers and professional development: Some
intersections. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education:
New paradigms and practices (pp. 193–224). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Israel, M., Carnahan, C., Snyder, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Supporting new teachers
of students with significant disabilities through virtual coaching: A proposed model.
Remedial and Special Education, 34(4), 195–204.
Kidd, W., & Murray, J. (2013). Using emerging technologies to develop professional learning.
Professional Development in Education, 39(2), 165–167.
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological
communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication
tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 117–130.
Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (2013). Most states funding schools less than before recession. Washington,
DC: Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/
files/9-12-13sfp.pdf
Lincoln, E., & Guba, Y. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 69–81.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher com munity: Representations of classroom practice.
Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.
Marsh, J., Hamilton, L., & Gill, B. (2008). Assistance and accountability in externally managed
schools: The case of Edison Schools, Inc. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 423–458.
Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers’ professional
development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison.
Computers and Education, 60(1), 40–51.
Mayer, A., Grenier, R., Warhol, L., & Donaldson, M. (2013). Making a change: The role of

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
44
external coaches in school-based communities of practice. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 24(3), 337–363.
McDougall, D., Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2007). Inside the black box of school
reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1), 51–89.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and
micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Josey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupsheynyuk, D. (2008). Blended teacher
professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. Internet and Higher
Education, 11(3), 201–210.
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed school reform
model: The case of success for all. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 400–422.
Pettit, J. (2005). Conferencing and workshops: A blend for staff development. Education,
Communication & Information, 5(3), 251–263.
Poglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supervitz, J. (2003).
The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2011). Improving the outcomes of coaching-based
professional development interventions. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 295–307). New York, NY: Guilford.
Quintana, M., & Zambrano, E. (2013). E-mentoring: The effects on pedagogical training
of rural teachers with complex geographical accesses. Computers in Human Behavior.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.042
Sallnas, E. (2005). Effects of communication mode on social presence, virtual presence and
performance in collaborative virtual environments. Presence, 14(4), 434–449.
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing
grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental
study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.
Schrum, L., English, M., & Galizio, L. (2012). Project DAVES: An exploratory study of social
presence, e-mentoring and vocational counseling support in community college courses.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 96–101.
Smylie, M., & Corcoran, T. (2006, April). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-
based practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.pdf
Supovitz, J. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the
district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers.
Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 459–478.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, J. (2000). The influence of standards-based reform on classroom
practices and culture. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.
Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the
online environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
24(5), 383–393.
U. S. Department of Education. (2006). LEA and school improvement: Non-regulatory
guidance. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/
schoolimprovementguid.pdf.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
45
APPENDIX A
Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) Global Ratings Rubric
Level 0: Not
Functioning
Level 1: Functioning,
with Some Limitations
Level 2: Functioning Level 3: Functioning Well Level 4: Thriving
A.
The
Stability
of the ILT
Setting
ILT is not meet-
ing at all.
Or, less than half
of the scheduled
monthly ILT
meetings actually
take place.
ILT is scheduled for
and/or only meets
50%–75% of the
months of the school
year.
Or, ILT regularly meets
for less than 90 minutes
(typically 60).*
Attendance is not “near-
ly 100%” (all facilitators
and the Administrator)
at all meetings.*
ILT is scheduled for and
meets at least 80% of the
months to date (ex: 8 of
10 possible meetings) for
90 minutes. Virtually all
meetings spend the entire
90 minutes focused on
protocol and implemen-
tation and topics relevant
to implementation.
Attendance is nearly
100% (all facilitators and
the Administrator) at all
meetings.
ILT is scheduled for and
meets 100% of the time
(ex: 10 of 10 possible
school year months) for at
least 90 minutes. Virtually
all meetings spend the
entire time focused on
protocol and implementa-
tion and topics relevant to
implementation.
Attendance is nearly
100% (all facilitators and
the Administrator) at all
meetings.
ILT is scheduled for and meets
100% of the time (ex: 10 of 10
possible school year months)
for at least 90 minutes. At least
one meeting has extended
up to or beyond two hours
in order to complete specific
and targeted tasks that focus
on protocol and implementa-
tion and topics relevant to
implementation.
Attendance is nearly 100%
(all facilitators and the
Administrator) at all meetings.
B.
Debriefing
Workgroup
Meetings
Debriefing work-
group meetings
does not happen
or happens
rarely during ILT
meetings.
Debriefing workgroup
meetings occurs in 50%
to 80% of the ILTs,
and/or debriefing is
facilitated by the Coach
without participation
from the Administrator.
Debriefing occurs at
virtually all meetings, is
facilitated by the Coach
and/or Administrator
(admin participates
at a minimum), and
includes an update on
workgroup progress
from each facilitator.
Debriefing occurs at virtu-
ally all meetings, is jointly
facilitated by the Coach
and Administrator or in-
dividually/independently
by Admin, and includes
detailed but succinct ac-
counts by each facilitator
about the current work
and accomplishments of
their workgroup.
Debriefing occurs at virtually
all meetings, is facilitated by the
Coach and Administrator or
individually/independently by
Admin, and includes detailed
but succinct accounts by each
facilitator about the current
work and accomplishments of
their workgroup. Debriefing
often varies in its structure and
format so as to avoid routiniza-
tion over time.**

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
46
Level 0: Not
Functioning
Level 1: Functioning,
with Some Limitations
Level 2: Functioning Level 3: Functioning Well Level 4: Thriving
C.
Studying
the Inquiry
Protocol
and
Facilitation
Studying the
inquiry protocol,
related content,
and/or facilita-
tion does not
happen or hap-
pens rarely dur-
ing ILT meetings.
Studying the inquiry
protocol, related con-
tent, and/or facilitation
occurs in 50% to 80%
of the ILTs, and/or it is
regularly cut short due
to time constraints or
other conflicts.
Studying the inquiry
protocol, related con-
tent, and/or facilitation
occurs at virtually all
meetings and is pro-
vided by the Coach.
Studying the inquiry
protocol, related con-
tent, and/or facilitation
occurs at virtually all
meetings, is provided
by the Coach, and is
targeted to specific
facilitator needs identi-
fied by the Coach and
the Administrator (and
perhaps facilitators).
Studying the inquiry protocol,
related content, and/or facilita-
tion occurs at virtually all meet-
ings, is provided by the Coach,
and includes modules or mini-
lessons targeted to advanced
needs of the facilitators and
the school, as identified by the
Coach and the Administrator
(and perhaps facilitators).
D.
Planning
Workgroup
Meetings
Planning subse-
quent workgroup
meetings does
not happen or
happens in less
than half of the
ILT meetings.
Planning subsequent
workgroup meetings
occurs in 50%-80% of
the ILTs, and/or it is
regularly cut short due
to time constraints or
other conflicts.
Planning subsequent
workgroup meetings
occurs in virtually all
meetings and is assisted
by at least the Coach.
Planning subsequent
workgroup meetings
occurs in virtually all
meetings, is assisted by
both the Coach and the
Administrator, and re-
sults in draft agendas for
subsequent workgroup
meetings.
Planning subsequent work-
group meetings occurs in
virtually all meetings, is assisted
by both the Coach and the
Administrator, and results in
draft agendas for subsequent
workgroup meetings, which are
shared before the ILT adjourns
or circulated electronically.
Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) Global Ratings Rubric (continued)
*Note for “A” dimension. We are assuming that per model design, ILTs meet at least once per month for at least 90 minutes per
meeting. For attendance, “nearly” is defined as a maximum of one absence per facilitator across the entire year as verified by ILT
attendance records.
**Note for “B” dimension. Examples of varied debrief segments include (1) debrief is framed around reviewing and discussing
charts or work products (e.g., lesson plan charts), and (2) ILTs complete their planning first and the debrief last, with the debrief
including what they did in their last meetings and what they will do in their upcoming meetings.

TCR, 117, 110303
Virtual Coaching for Instructional Leaders
47
APPENDIX B
Sample Transcript Coding
Note. Codes are as follows: Technology Challenges = TC (Sound = TCs; Connection =
TCc; Visual = TCv; Cumbersome Features = TCcf; Placement = TCp); Adaptations = A
(Meeting Location = Aml; Speakerphone = Asp; Individual Laptops = Ail; Individual
Phone Chats = Apc; PPT Backup = Appt; Electronic Agenda Distribution = Aad; Speak
Loudly = Asl); Lost Productivity = ALP; Virtual Advantages = VA (Flexible Scheduling
= VAfs; Remote Attendance = VAra; Resource Access = VAra); Increased Principal
Capacity = IPC; Increased Facilitator Capacity = IFC; Interactive Limitations = IL;
Need Workgroup Interaction = NWI; Email Feedback = EF; Loss of Teacher Advocate
= LTA; Suggestions = S (Face-to-Face Institute = Sf2fi; Virtual Training = Svt).
Interview question: What obstacles, if any, have you encountered specifi-
cally related to virtual support, technology, or logistics?
Well, so the first ILT comes up and we couldn’t get the sound to
work (TCs) and Laura’s up on the screen and she can’t hear us
and we can hear her (TCs), and we spent so much time trying to
get the tech piece working even though I thought I had it working
before the meeting even started . . . but after that we started to
isolate what the problems were (A). We moved the location (Aml),
we’re working on setting up a speakerphone situation (Asp), so
we were able to overcome some of those technical obstacles (A).
The one technical obstacle that we don’t seem to be—we haven’t
yet solved is that interactive piece so, you know, it’s very difficult
to have the same level of interaction between Laura and the other
LT facilitators when she’s in that virtual capacity (IL) because she
might not hear (TCs), but you also have difficulty with seeing be-
cause there’s the nuances of expression (TCv) and then there’s
the interaction that had occurred between me and Laura where I
could look at Laura, I’d get a sense of what she was thinking and
we could have a little quick side conversation to adjust where we
were going with our work in ILT. Those little nuances are gone
(IL). And part of me says that’s a bad thing because I really de-
pended on and appreciated that collaboration and that feedback.
Yet, at the same time, it is also better because I think I’m taking a
greater level of ownership of the process (IPC). It’s very, I think
especially the first year, it was very easy to kind of hand things over
and let Laura step in more frequently because she had the greater
depth of knowledge about [the process] and now, however, as I’ve
increased my depth of knowledge . . . I feel more comfortable tak-
ing over that primary role (IPC), yet I miss the interaction (IL).

Teachers College Record, 117, 110303 (2015)
48
BRADLEY A. ERMELING is principal research scientist with Pearson
Research and Innovation Network and member of a research team from
UCLA and Stanford. His current research focuses on educator collabo-
ration, virtual coaching models, and methods for facilitating reflective
practice.
TIMOTHY T. TATSUI is Vice President of Pearson School Efficacy
Implementation and an affiliate member of the Research and Innovation
Network. His current research interests include the application and study
of implementation science, developmental evaluation, intervention fidel-
ity, complexity theory, logic modeling, and systems thinking in schools
and school systems in North America.
KELLY R. YOUNG is an Educational Specialist for Pearson School Services
and an affiliate member of the Research and Innovation Network. Her
current research focuses on the principal’s role in changing school cul-
ture and factors that affect teacher willingness to adopt new instructional
practices.

Appendix C
Readiness Instrument
Criteria
Level 1
Limited
Level 2
Border-line
Level 3
Adequate
Level 4
Strong
A. Site
Administrators
(Principal and
Assistant
Principals)
Limited or no support
for program from the
site administrators.
No key staff available
or willing to serve as
point for the project.
Administrators will
provide some support
for program but coach
or other staff member
would take on primary
responsibility for
project. Point person
would not be an
administrator.
At least one *capable
administrator
(Principal or AP) is
willing to serve as a
point person and take
on responsibility for
the project.
Multiple site
administrators are both
willing and *capable to
take on responsibility
for the project.
B. Teacher
Workgroup
Facilitators
Unlikely that any
workgroups in the
school will have a
capable facilitator.
1-3 workgroups in the
school will likely have
a capable facilitator
that is willing to be
trained and play a
leadership role.
Most workgroups will
have a capable
facilitator who is
willing to be trained
and play a leadership
role.
Each potential teacher
workgroup will likely
have a capable
facilitator who is
willing to be trained
and play a leadership
role.
C. Content
Expert
(Specialist or
knowledgeable
teacher)
No content expertise
is available.
A specialist or other
teacher with content
expertise is present at
the site but has limited
availability to attend
training/ support
workgroups.
At least one content
expert (specialist or
knowledgeable teacher)
is available and willing
to attend training/
support workgroups.
Several content experts
(specialist and/or
teachers) are available
and willing to attend
training/ support
workgroups.
D. Potential for
Buy-in
Most teachers are
likely to be obstinate,
cynical, and will resist
participation.
Some teachers will be
skeptical but willing to
give it a try. A few may
remain obstinate/
resist participation.
A critical mass of
teachers (at least 50%)
are eager to
collaborate. Others will
agree to participate/
give it a try.
Nearly all teachers are
eager to collaborate
and study their
teaching/ to readily
participate.
E. Experience
with
Collaboration
Teachers have had
negative experiences
with collaboration.
Meetings have been
hostile and
unproductive.
Teachers have little or
no experience in
collaboration other
than large faculty or
department meetings.
Teachers have had
some positive
experience with
collaboration. Modest
levels of collegiality.
Teachers have
significant positive
experience in
collaboration and have
established norms of
discourse and strong
collegiality.
F. Available
Settings
No settings available
for “job-alike” teacher
teams (grade-level,
course, or subject
area).
Regular meeting times
have been established
for grade-level, course,
or subject-area teams,
but meetings are
frequently interrupted,
hi-jacked, canceled/
rescheduled.
Work is in progress to
establish and protect
settings for grade-level,
course, or subject-area
teams within school
day or with
compensation.
Regular meeting times
have been securely
established for grade-
level, course, or
subject-area teams and
time is protected for
this work.

Criteria
Level 1
Limited
Level 2
Border-line
Level 3
Adequate
Level 4
Strong
G. Timing/
Bandwidth
Timing is poor for
beginning the work.
School is saturated
with other initiatives,
programs, efforts.
Insufficient
bandwidth.
Timing is not ideal for
beginning the work.
Bandwidth is
constrained by other
school initiatives,
programs, efforts.
Timing is good for
beginning the work.
Only some minor
conflicts with other
school initiatives,
programs, efforts.
Bandwidth is
congested but not
overwhelmed.
Timing is ideal for
beginning the work.
Aligns well with other
initiatives, programs,
and resources in place.
School leaders and
teachers have
sufficient bandwidth.
Readiness 7-13 = Limited Readiness 20-23 = Adequate Readiness
Scale 14-19 = Border-line Readiness 24-28 = Strong Readiness
Use this scale as a general guide to analyze the overall readiness level of the school.
*Important Note: A school that receives less than a 3 for dimension “A” is not recommended for implementation
regardless of overall score or capacity in other dimensions. See next page for additional qualities of a “capable” site
administrator.

Appendix C (Continued)
Criterion A Elaborated. What are the Qualities of a capable Site Administrator?
1. Believes in the value of students having a caring and competent teacher for every subject.
2. Believes that schools should be places of learning for teachers as well as students.
3. Believes that each teacher, each workgroup, each administrator, and all support staff must
work together to improve student achievement and the quality of life at school, and that no
one individual or subset of individuals is solely responsible for improving student
performance.
4. Is willing to serve and to devote the time and energy necessary to assist and support the
instructional leadership team in meeting its goals and objectives.
5. Believes in the value of teams and collaboration as a means for improving teaching and
learning.
6. Is respected by the faculty as an instructional leader.
7. Understands (or is willing to learn about) the model and can explain to others how it
connects to the overall goals of the school and district.
8. Has a positive attitude in general and does not dwell on the negative.
9. Recognizes the importance of stable settings and helps to protect time dedicated for work.
10. Openly seeks guidance and direction to learn and improve
Criterion B Elaborated. What are the Qualities of a capable Workgroup Facilitator?
1. Believes in the value of students having a caring and competent teacher for every subject.
2. Believes that each teacher, each workgroup, each administrator, and all support staff must
work together to improve student achievement and the quality of life at school, and that no
one individual or group is solely responsible for improving student performance.
3. Is willing to serve and to devote the time and energy necessary for the teacher workgroup to
meet its instructional goals and objectives.
4. Is respected by the team members as a good teacher (or a very promising teacher in the case
of newer staff members).
5. Is considered capable of representing the teacher workgroup at facilitator meetings by
accurately articulating the group’s instructional goals, objectives, and focus.
6. Has the skill to conduct the teacher workgroup meetings in a timely manner, stick to the
written agenda, facilitate “buy-in” from other team members, and reach consensus when
there are differences of opinion.
7. Understands (or is willing to learn about) the model and can explain it to group members
and guide the workgroup through the protocols throughout the year.
8. Has a positive attitude in general and does not dwell on the negative.
9. Has the skill to keep workgroup meetings from drifting off focus to non-instructional issues
or “gripe” sessions.

Appendix D
Verifying Technology Capacity
Pre-Implementation Site Visit Checklist
A trial-run and audio/video check will be performed as part of preparation meetings prior to
implementation. During this time, a district or school technician should be available to assist with
checking for the following technology requirements.
□ Access to a meeting a room with multimedia projector
□ Reliable Internet connection. For multiple video users the recommended download /
upload speed is 4Mbps (download) / 512kbps
□ Adequate computer-aided audio or phone speaker system for ILT members to participate
in dialogue and listen to presentations with the program coach
□ Access to at least one computer equipped with a web camera (ideally one computer for
every 1-3 participants)
□ Computers must meet system requirements for Adobe Connect Pro (see Adobe software
specifications)

Appendix E
Coach’s Notes on ILT Dry-Run and Principal Training for Virtual Model
Procedures for Conducting ILT Dry-Run
1. Logistics – practice, practice, practice with principals so they feel comfortable with the tech.
2. Clearly document the roles (in writing) of principal and coach for each ILT segment. What
are the unique aspects to look for in each segment?
a. Planning segment: Difficult to “dry-run” authentically but helpful to think through
which facilitators and issues we want to target for assistance. In a f2f setting, this
could be handled in the moment, but in a virtual setting, important to be planned.
b. Individual conferences: After the third ILT, found that if facilitators picked up the
phone (taking it off speaker) for planning individual planning conference, I could
provide 1:1 help.
3. Remind the principals it is “their” meeting so they can control it. Also, they are in the room
and can see the reactions, they know the connections to the school/district work, and they
are the building leader; I am the coach not the director. I empower the principals to take
charge.
4. PowerPoint scripting
a. Notes section always contains who facilitates the slide, the estimated time, and the
role of other person who is not facilitating.
b. Notes section should also contain script of training, questions, and “look fors”
c. Include pairing/partners, order of who we are going to ask to respond, etc.
d. Use very few animations
e. Personalize and modify PPT for each school
Ideas for Principal Training for Virtual Model
1. Written documentation of key strategies and practices for effective support of teacher
workgroups.
2. Guidance on what to “listen for/watch for” in workgroups they attend so they can update
the coach with important details and insights about each team.
3. Training on the use of charting (virtually and on paper); this added movement seemed to
increase the authenticity of the work and energize the participants: they knew where to focus
their attention.
4. Training on principal’s role for each segment of ILT including how to monitor and read
non-verbal cues and relay information to the coach.
(Excerpt from coach’s field notes)

Appendix F
Example Diagrams of Effective and Ineffective Room Configurations for Virtual ILT
Figure F1. Example of Effective Room Configuration (Rise Middle ILT)
Note. F = Facilitator, P = Principal, A= Assistant Principal
Figure F2. Example of Ineffective Room Configuration (East Elementary ILT)
Note. F = Facilitator, P = Principal, I = Instructional Specialist
F
P
F
F
I
F
F
Screen
Speaker phone
F
F
F
F
F
A
P
Screen
Speaker phone