The Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large Urban City: A
Phenomenological Study
Submitted by
Sadiyah Lewis-El

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education

Slippery Rock University
April 1, 2026

© by Sadiyah Lewis-El, 2026
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large Urban City: A
Phenomenological Study

by
Sadiyah Lewis-El

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education

Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA
2026

APPROVED BY:
Mark D. Hogue, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Richard Busi, Ph.D., Committee Member

Abstract
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of
instructional leadership for instructional coaches in a large, urban city. The theories guiding this
study are Hallinger’s theory on instructional leadership, providing a lens for understanding how
instructional leadership may be both perceived and enacted by instructional coaches, as well as
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, offering insights into how instructional coaches’ experiences of
instructional leadership may impact their performance. A qualitative research design was used to
allow for an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon. A sample of 10 instructional coaches across
K-12 schools in a large urban setting in the northeastern United States were interviewed to examine
the various experiences of instructional leadership within different organizational structures. A
sample of 15 teachers who collaborate with the instructional coaches participated in focus groups
to explore how the instructional coaches’ instructional leadership is perceived. Both sets of data
were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Three central themes emerged from the data,
with findings indicating that standardization of instructional coaches’ responsibilities and
inclusion in a distributive instructional leadership framework may support instructional coaches’
self-efficacy, success, and ultimately their experiences and perceptions of leadership.
Keywords: instructional coaching, instructional leadership, school leadership, selfefficacy

v
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my loved ones, who helped me through this journey in ways
seen and unseen.
To my father, Robert Ellerbe, who instilled a love of academics in me at an early age and
took an earnest interest in my dissertation journey. I love you!
To my children, Samaria, Derrick Jr., and Serenity. You all have had to sacrifice much
throughout my doctoral journey. Thank you for your sacrifice; may I return it back manifold. I
love you more deeply than you could ever know.
To my sisters, you have supported me in ways I deeply appreciate. Sayanna, thank you
for being a core motivation for me, to show you the possibilities for people who were raised
where and how we were raised. Sadonna, thank you for always helping me to find the humor in
life and in this journey. Shileen, thank you for your inquisitive spirit that reminded me to keep an
open mind.
To my friends, Jennifer, Ginger, and Ellaina. You have been such integral parts of my
life, and I am forever grateful and blessed for our friendship. I deeply appreciate how you
supported me in this work, even when it was out of your comfort zone. Your personal,
professional, and academic support kept me during this journey.

vi
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Mark Hogue for not
only his support and guidance during my dissertation, but also his unwavering belief in me. Dr.
Hogue has been a consistent source of motivation for me, for his trust in my capacity renewed
my strength whenever it began to falter. He has been a beacon light throughout my matriculation
at Slippery Rock University.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Richard Busi, who served as a reader and supporter
of my work. Dr. Busi provided essential advice and suggestions that helped my study evolve into
the best possible version it could be. He pushed me to think deeply about the “how” of my study
and encouraged me to not have all the answers at once but to make sure that I found the answers
all the way.
Dr. Hogue and Dr. Busi, you have left indelible impressions on my doctoral journey and
for that you have my sincerest gratitude!

vii
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .......................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
Overview .............................................................................................................................1
Background ........................................................................................................................1
Historical Context of Instructional Leadership ........................................................1
Social Context of Instructional Leadership..............................................................4
Theoretical Context of Instruction Leadership ........................................................5
Problem Statement.............................................................................................................6
Purpose Statement .............................................................................................................7
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................7
Research Questions ............................................................................................................9
Central Research Question .......................................................................................9
Sub-Question One ..................................................................................................10
Sub-Question Two .................................................................................................10
Definitions .........................................................................................................................10
Summary...........................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................12
Overview ...........................................................................................................................12

viii
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................13
Instructional Leadership Theory ............................................................................13
Self-Efficacy Theory ..............................................................................................15
Related Literature ............................................................................................................18
Instructional Leadership.........................................................................................18
Instructional Coaching ...........................................................................................28
Educators’ Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................43
Summary...........................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..............................................................................................49
Central Research Question .....................................................................................50
Sub-Question One ..................................................................................................50
Sub-Question Two .................................................................................................51
Setting and Participants ..................................................................................................51
Setting ....................................................................................................................51
Participants.............................................................................................................51
Researcher Positionality ..................................................................................................52
Interpretive Framework .........................................................................................52
Philosophical Assumptions ....................................................................................53
Researcher’s Role ..................................................................................................55
Procedures ........................................................................................................................56
Permissions ............................................................................................................56
Recruitment Plan....................................................................................................56
Data Collection Plan ........................................................................................................58

ix
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Individual Interviews Data Collection Approach ..................................................58
Central Research Question .....................................................................................59
Sub-Question One ..................................................................................................59
Sub-Question Two .................................................................................................59
Data Synthesis........................................................................................................65
Trustworthiness ...............................................................................................................66
Credibility ..............................................................................................................66
Transferability ........................................................................................................66
Dependability .........................................................................................................67
Confirmability ........................................................................................................67
Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................68
Summary...........................................................................................................................68
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ..................................................................................................70
Overview ...........................................................................................................................70
Setting and Participants ..................................................................................................70
Setting ....................................................................................................................70
Participants.............................................................................................................71
Results ...............................................................................................................................74
Distinguishing “Instructional Coaches’ Instructional Leadership” and
“Instructional Coaches as Instructional Leaders” ..................................................77
Role Ambiguity and Fractured Instructional Leadership.......................................78
Relational Trust as an Enabler ...............................................................................87
Perceived Agency and Coaching Self-Efficacy .....................................................96

x
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Outlier Data and Findings ....................................................................................106
Research Question Responses .......................................................................................117
Central Research Question ...................................................................................118
Sub-Question One ................................................................................................118
Sub-Question Two ...............................................................................................119
Summary.........................................................................................................................120
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................121
Overview .........................................................................................................................121
Discussion .......................................................................................................................121
Interpretation of Findings ....................................................................................121
Implications for Policy and Practice ....................................................................136
Theoretical and Empirical Implications ...............................................................141
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................146
Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................................151
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................153
References ...................................................................................................................................155
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................173
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................174
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................176
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................180
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................184
Appendix F .................................................................................................................................186

xi
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Instructional Coach Participants..................................................................................72
Table 2. Teacher Participants.....................................................................................................73

xii
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Relationships Between Distributed Leadership Infrastructure,
Role Clarity, Relational Trust, and Instructional Coaches’ Self-Efficacy...................................136

1
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
Although instructional leadership is a relatively new concept in American education, it
plays a vital role in a school’s overall functioning (Cuban, 1988; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). Instructional leadership influences the caliber of teaching, learning, and the
general learning environment in a school, thereby impacting teacher performance and student
outcomes (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood, 1994; Shatzer et al., 2014).
Instructional coaches can be integral members of an instructional leadership team; unfortunately,
many instructional coaches experience various impediments to enacting this role (Galey-Horn &
Woulfin, 2021; Miller et al., 2019). In this chapter, a contextual background of instructional
leadership and instructional coaches will be explored, including the historical, social, and
theoretical contexts. The research problem, specific research questions, purpose of the study,
and significance of the research are included in this chapter. Relevant definitions for the reader
will be provided. Finally, a summary will conclude the chapter.
Background
A cursory background on instructional leadership and instructional coaching is necessary
to understand how instructional coaches may be hindered in their instructional leadership. The
following section will provide such a contextualized background. Specifically, it will contain a
summary of the historical, social, and theoretical contexts of instructional coaches as
instructional leaders.
Historical Context of Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership is a relatively new concept, with its historical basis in school

2
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
leadership. In the 19th century United States, urban schools grew from one- or two-room
buildings to multiple-room buildings in response to an increase in population (Rousmaniere,
2007). Larger buildings with more students required a more centralized system of management;
school leadership began in the form of a teacher managing the schoolhouse and the students
within the schoolhouse (Rousmaniere, 2007). Eventually, this role transformed into that of a
head-teacher, then a teaching-principal, and finally a building principal (Hallinger, 1992). Each
step in the evolution of school leadership lessened leaders’ instructional duties and increased
their managerial and administrative responsibilities, such as overseeing student discipline and
hiring staff. Although the only prerequisite for 19th century school leaders was prior teaching
experience, by the early 20th century school principals needed to meet certain standards and
qualifications to be considered for the role (Hallinger, 1992). In the 1950s and 1960s, most states
had academic qualifications for aspiring principals, although little to none of the preparation for
school leaders focused on their ability to instructionally lead a school (Rousmaniere, 2007).
An examination of the impact of school leadership evolved out of an examination of
student outcomes. Educational studies in the 1970s and early 1980s noted a disparity in student
outcomes across the nation (Ravitch, 1990). Research during this period showed that, when
controls for various demographic variables were put in place, student achievement in some
schools consistently outperformed those in other comparable schools. This led researchers to
investigate these “effective schools” in an attempt to identify the commonalities among these
schools that led to their success. One of the major conclusions of the “effective schools” research
was that the leadership enacted by a school’s principal was a significant factor influencing
student outcomes (Hallinger, 2005). These principals directly influenced the quality of
instruction and indirectly influenced student learning in their schools in various ways. These

3
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
effective school principals were deemed the instructional leaders of their school, with the
facilitation of teaching and learning to be a core component of their professional responsibilities
(Hallinger, 2005). Thus, instructional leadership saw its rise in the 1980s as educational leaders
and various educational stakeholders sought ways to improve student learning and academic
performance.
Instructional leaders sought ways to improve teachers’ instructional practices, ultimately
increasing student achievement in schools. A logical vehicle for this improvement was
professional development and training sessions for teachers. Unfortunately, school leaders and
educational researchers across the country found that many professional development efforts did
not lead to long lasting improvements in teaching or learning (Ravitch, 1990; Showers & Joyce,
1996). To sustain ongoing improvement, teachers needed ongoing professional development,
assistance\ implementing best instructional practices, and feedback on their instruction. Peer
coaching models were introduced to address some of the shortcomings of other reform efforts
(Showers & Joyce, 1996). The peer coaching model hinged on the supposition that pairing
teachers with expert peer consultants would allow for ongoing modeling of new skills, practicing
new skills, and receiving feedback on the use of new skills (Baker & Showers, 1984; Showers,
1982). This, in turn, would lead to longer-lasting and more proficient implementation of new
practices than single-event training. Research on the instructional coaching model confirmed that
regular and consistent coaching experiences result in more transfer of newly learned instructional
practices than training alone (Baker & Showers, 1984; Showers, 1982; Showers, 1987).
Thereafter, instructional coaching became a core vehicle of instructional improvement
and increased student achievement in many schools. Although many different models of
instructional coaching were developed, nothing in the way of a standard definition or universal

4
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
qualifications for instructional coaching coalesced in the United States. Instructional coaching
has been implemented in a variety of ways; instructional coaches’ experiences have varied
widely (Brandmo et al., 2021; Comstock & Margolis, 2021; Eadens & Ceballos, 2023; GaleyHorn & Woulfin, 2021; Munson & Saclarides, 2022). While some instructional coaches are core
members of an instructional leadership team and critical to schools’ instructional well-being,
other instructional coaches face numerous barriers to effectively impact teaching and learning.
Social Context of Instructional Leadership
An examination of the instructional leadership of instructional coaches is particularly
meaningful given the decline of student academic performance in recent years. A 2023 Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, study found that math proficiency
scores for American 4th graders’ scores fell 18 points after 2019 and 27 points for American 8th
graders’ scores (Schwartz, 2024). Similar drops were found in reading scores, with 2024
National Assessment of Educational Progress assessment scores for American 4th and 8th grade
students falling to a new all-time low (Schwartz, 2025). Some theorize that strong instructional
leadership can reverse these downward trends in students’ achievement (Ciccone, 2024). With
schools and districts investing large amounts of material and financial resources to hire
instructional coaches as additions to their instructional leadership teams (Knight, 2012; Knight &
Skrtic, 2021), the findings of this study are relevant to those wanting a return on their
investments.
Additionally, the social context of American education in a post-COVID society renders
this study especially apropos. Many researchers believe that students experienced “learning loss”
during their COVID pandemic-related learning experiences, a loss which has yet to be made up
(Donnelly & Patrinos, 2022; Khan & Ahmed, 2021). Teachers and school leaders alike struggle

5
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
to address the post-pandemic needs of students while still supporting students to reach prepandemic expectations and standards (Donnelly & Patrinos, 2022; Khan & Ahmed, 2021; Zhao
& Watterston, 2021). New ways of teaching have been introduced into the American education
system post-pandemic as well, to both continue incorporating the new technologies of COVID
education and to address students’ seeming loss of social skills related to the pandemic (Ratten,
2023; Zhao & Watterston, 2021). Teachers report experiencing professional burnout at alarming
rates post-COVID as they try to adapt to the post-pandemic instructional landscape, expressing
the need for continuous support in this new educational terrain (Etxebarria et al., 2023).
Theoretical Context of Instruction Leadership
Because of the lack of a standard conceptualization of instructional coaching, there is a
dearth of research on instructional coaches as instructional leaders. Educational researcher Jim
Knight has emerged as a leading voice on the role of instructional coaches. His works have
described how instructional coaches must be experts in high-impact instruction and data
gathering, use adult learning theory to design capacity-building professional development
experiences for teachers, and collaborate with school and systems leaders to affect sustainable
change on a large-scale level (Knight, 2017; Knight, 2019; Knight, 2021; Knight & Skrtic,
2021). Although the connection is not explicitly stated, an analysis of this research reveals that
instructional coaches are core instructional leaders as defined by Hallinger’s instructional
leadership theory (2005). In particular, instructional coaches functioning as instructional leaders
is an example of the distributed leadership associated with more recent research about
instructional leadership theory (McBrayer et al., 2018).
This current research will attempt to more explicitly situate instructional coaches within
the framework of instructional leadership. Specifically, this research will extend the existing

6
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
research on how instructional coaches see themselves as instructional leaders. Additionally, this
research will explore how instructional coaches are able or unable to enact their instructional
leadership. As the ability or inability of instructional coaches to enact instructional leadership is
explored, a conversation of self-efficacy will naturally be included. Thus, self-efficacy theory
will be reviewed (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy theory posits that a person’s perception of his or
her capacity to successfully complete a task will influence how successful he or she is at doing
that task. This current study will use self-efficacy theory to explore the impact that instructional
coaches’ ability to be instructional leaders has on instructional coaches’ perception of
performance of their responsibilities.
Problem Statement
The problem is that instructional coaches are uniquely able to function as instructional
leaders, but various factors in different contexts affect whether and how instructional coaches
can enact their instructional leadership. Without a standard model for implementing instructional
coaching in a school or across schools, instructional coaches can be used in a variety of ways
(Kho, et al., 2019; Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021; Miller et al., 2019). Some coaches may find
that their lived professional duties afford them opportunities to both influence teaching and
learning and be seen as a leader in their setting; other instructional coaches experience a sense
that they are not functioning in a way that makes a significance impact on the learning
environment and student achievement (Anderson & Wallin, 2018; Comstock & Margolis, 2021;
Hashim, 2020). Additionally, even if a setting is ripe for an instructional coach to act as an
instructional leader, a lack of standard prerequisites for becoming an instructional coach will
indubitably influence both how prepared a coach is to be an instructional leader and how the
coach perceives him- or herself as an instructional leader (Dami et al., 2022; Gulmez & Isik,

7
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
2020; Highland & Woods, 2024; Lewis, 2019; Lozano, 2024). As more schools, districts, and K12 learning institutions turn to instructional coaching as a means to buoy teaching and learning, a
study of the interaction between instructional coaching and instructional leadership is especially
relevant.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to understand the experiences of enacting
instructional leadership for instructional coaches in a large, urban city. At this stage in the
research, instructional leadership will be defined as leadership (both perceived and assigned) that
supports the development of teaching and learning through three avenues: defining the school
mission, managing instructional programming, and cultivating the learning environment
(Hallinger, 2003).
Significance of the Study
This study will contribute to a small but growing body of research on instructional
leadership and instructional coaches. Specifically, the significance of this study can be explored
from a theoretical, empirical, and practical perspective. From a theoretical perspective, this study
will extend instructional leadership theory to a class of educators who are not traditionally
viewed as instructional leaders. For an empirical point of view, this study will be an addition to a
body of research around an aspect of instructional coaching that is currently limited. Finally,
from a practical perspective, this study is of import to large, urban educational leaders who are
interested in efficiently optimizing the instructional leadership of their instructional coaches.
Theoretical Significance
Hallinger’s (2005) instructional leadership theory has evolved and been added to
throughout the years. One of the significant changes to instructional leadership theory since its

8
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
inception is the acknowledgement that instructional leadership is not vested in the school
principal alone (McBrayer et al., 2018). While a principal is head of school and has a duty to act
as an instructional leader, he or she can distribute some of the responsibility for the instructional
well-being of the school to other members of the school team (Jimerson & Quebec-Fuentes,
2021; Lipscombe et al., 2023). Recently, assistant principals, department chairs, and even teacher
leaders have been considered important members of a school’s instructional leadership team
(Jimerson & Quebec-Fuentes, 2021; Lipscombe et al., 2023). This current research seeks to
explore whether instructional coaches are able to act as instructional leaders and thereby
contribute an important, under-researched perspective to this body of knowledge.
Empirical Significance
There is a strong body of literature regarding various aspects of instructional coaching.
For example, instructional coaching as job-embedded professional development has been
extensively studied since the 1990s (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990; Loucks-Horsley, 1995; Moche,
2000; Warnock et al., 2022). There are also many studies about the impact of instructional
coaching on teachers’ instructional practices and student outcomes (Cox & Mullen, 2023;
Devine et al., 2013; Glover et al., 2023; Reddy et al., 2021). Although instructional leadership
involves influencing instruction and students’ learning, the concept of instructional coaches as
instructional leaders, however, is not currently well researched. This research will add to current
literature on this aspect of instructional coaching while offering opportunities for various followup studies.
Practical Significance
The current study seeks to understand instructional coaches’ experiences of instructional
leadership. Specifically, it will examine whether they are able to act as instructional leaders and

9
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
how this impacts their professional self-efficacy. Findings from this study will be particularly
relevant to educational leaders at the school and district levels who either currently use or are
exploring the use of instructional coaches. This research can help leaders create the conditions
necessary for instructional coaches to positively impact teaching and learning; being perceived
and perceiving themselves as key leaders in the learning environment. Although this study is
relegated to a large, urban city, future researchers may decide to conduct similar research in
suburban or rural areas. Additionally, future researchers may use the findings of this
phenomenological study to engage in experimental research aimed at determining which factors
have the most impact on instructional coaches’ ability to be instructional leaders as well as which
factors have the most impact on instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for instructional leadership.
Research Questions
Instructional coaches can often fulfill instructional leadership roles that more traditional
school leaders, like principals and assistant principals, are unable to fulfill. A gap in the literature
surrounding the nexus between instructional leadership and instructional coaching demonstrates
a need for this current study. Additionally, whether and how instructional coaches can act as
instructional leaders may impact instructional coaches’ sense of self-efficacy for their work.
Because professional self-efficacy has such an influence on professional performance, there also
needs to be specific research examining how instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for instructional
leadership both impacts and is impacted by their work. The central research question and two
sub-questions address these areas of interest.
Central Research Question
What are the instructional leadership experiences of instructional coaches in a large,
urban city?

10
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Sub-Question One
How do instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional leadership?
Sub-Question Two
What factors influence how instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional
leadership?
Definitions
1. Instructional coach – An educator who partners with teachers to help teachers
incorporate research-based instructional practices into their teaching and improve student
learning (Knight, 2007).
2.

Instructional leadership- Leadership (both perceived and assigned) that supports the
development of teaching and learning through three avenues: defining the school mission,
managing instructional programming, and cultivating the learning environment
(Hallinger, 2003).

3. Self-efficacy – An individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary
to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977).
Summary
In this introductory chapter, a contextual background of instructional leadership and
instructional coaches was explored from historical, social, and theoretical contexts. The problem
of this study is that although instructional coaches can be important members of a school’s
instructional leadership team (Anderson & Wallin, 2018; Comstock & Margolis, 2021; Hashim,
2020), they may be hindered from functioning in instructional leadership capacities for a variety
of reasons, potentially impacting their self-efficacy as instructional leaders. The purpose of this
study is to understand factors that support or impede instructional coaches from viewing

11
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
themselves and acting as instructional leaders, as well as to determine whether and how
instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for instructional leadership is consequently impacted.
There is a strong significance for this study. From a theoretical perspective, this study will
extend the understandings of the instructional leadership theory to instructional coaches, who are
not traditionally seen as instructional leaders but are uniquely positioned to be instructional
leaders. From an empirical perspective, this study will add to the bodies of knowledge about
instructional leadership and instructional coaches, with each individual body of literature lacking
research around the interaction of these two. From a practical perspective, this study has
implications for school leaders, educational stakeholders, and future researchers. This chapter
concluded with definitions of terms central to this study.

12
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
A literature review is “a synthesis of a selection of relevant literature that covers a
specific topic and related research studies” (Claxton & Dolan, 2022, p. 2). This literature review
is intended to provide a synthesis of current research surrounding the instructional leadership of
instructional coaches. The literature review is grounded in Hallinger’s (2005) instructional
leadership theory, as this research will explore how instructional coaches experience their
instructional leadership. Additionally, this study will explore how instructional coaches’ selfefficacy is impacted by their experiences enacting instructional leadership; thus, Bandura’s
(1977) self-efficacy theory is also a grounding theoretical framework for this research.
This literature review will first explore instructional leadership research, providing a
historical context of instructional leadership, exploring the impact of instructional leadership,
and discussing the factors limiting school principals’ enactment of instructional leadership. Next,
the literature review will examine instructional coaches as possible instructional leaders,
examining instructional coaching best practices, characteristics that uniquely qualify
instructional coaches to be instructional leaders, and obstacles that impact instructional coaches’
ability to act and be perceived as instructional leaders. Then, an examination of factors impacting
educators’ self-efficacy will be undertaken. Lastly, a case for this current study will be made by
explaining how this study narrows a gap in the body of research on this topic.
As school principals’ responsibilities continue to grow in an evolving educational
landscape, principals are limited in their ability to perform instructional leadership functions.
Various middle leaders - such as instructional coaches - will carry out instructional leadership
roles so that schools can function well. Consequently, it is necessary to explore the impact of

13
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional leadership experiences and perceptions of instructional coaches, to address
hindrances to their instructional leadership and increase their positive impact on schools.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is a set of concepts and theories that serve as a blueprint for
understanding and interpreting research findings (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). It offers the
researcher a lens through which the research topic can be examined. There are two theoretical
frameworks grounding this research: instructional leadership theory and self-efficacy theory.
Instructional Leadership Theory
Instructional leadership theory is one of two theoretical frameworks supporting this
research. School leaders such as principals and heads of school perform a variety of duties to
oversee the successful functioning of schools. Some of these duties include hiring and evaluating
staff, managing budgets, handling student discipline, overseeing the upkeep of school facilities,
and maintaining partnerships with families and community members (Cuban, 1988). The
responsibilities of school leaders can be categorized into managerial, political, and instructional
tasks (Hallinger, 2005; McBrayer et.al, 2018). Effective school leadership is often characterized
by the ability to skillfully balance these responsibilities (McBrayer et al., 2018).
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, educational researchers took a closer look at the effectiveness
of schools in terms of the academic achievement of students (Hallinger, 2005). Studies at the
time found that effective schools had school leaders in place who devoted much of their time to
overseeing the instruction of the school (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Leithwood, 1994). A closer look at school leader preparation ensued, with a specific focus on
instructional leadership theory. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) produced seminal work around the
instructional leadership theory, identifying the instructional roles and responsibilities school

14
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
leaders perform that have the biggest impact on student achievement. Instructional leadership is
characterized by leadership that gives precedence to instructional responsibilities such as setting
clear teaching and learning expectations, highlighting student achievement, prioritizing staff time
for instructional collaboration and reflection, and creating opportunities for professional learning
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
Instructional leadership theory came to be characterized as consisting of three specific
goals for school leaders: defining the mission of the school, managing the instructional program,
and promoting a positive learning climate (Hallinger, 2005). Researchers found that school
leaders’ actions that prioritized instructional tasks for teachers, invested in professional
development to build teachers’ capacity, promoted teachers’ continued learning of content
knowledge and skills, and created a culture of growth mindset and continuous improvement
contributed to students’ achievement (Hallinger, 2005: Leithwood, 1994; Shatzer et al., 2014).
Students’ motivation to do well academically and teachers’ collective self-efficacy have been
shown to be influenced by school leaders’ instructional leadership (McCormick et al., 2002).
More recent studies grounded in instructional leadership theory have explored how
instructional leadership is influenced by distributed leadership practices. Despite the strong
influence that principals’ instructional leadership has on the overall academic wellbeing of the
school, principals’ responsibilities pull their focus in many directions, and they are not always
able to prioritize their instructional duties (Cuban, 1988; McBrayer et al., 2018). Additionally,
principals do not always have the preparation, adult learning understanding, or specific content
knowledge needed to effectively support teachers’ professional growth (Anderson & Wallin,
2018). Distributed leadership calls on school leaders at the highest level -such as school
principals and heads of school- to empower middle level school leaders -such as assistant

15
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
principals, instructional coaches, and teacher leaders- to take responsibility for core leadership
duties. Instructional coaches have been identified as particularly able to carry out many
instructional leadership capacities if they have received appropriate preparation for instructional
leadership and systems are in place to support their instructional leadership (Anderson & Wallin,
2018; Comstock & Margolis, 2021). Grounding this dissertation in instructional leadership
theory will allow for an examination of what instructional coaches understand as core
responsibilities of their work. Exploring instructional coaches from the instructional leadership
theory will also allow for an exploration of how instructional coaches perceive their work as
contributing to student achievement and teachers’ professional growth.
Self-Efficacy Theory
The second of the two theoretical frameworks guiding this research is self-efficacy
theory. In his seminal work on the self-efficacy theory, Bandura (1977) defines efficacy
expectation as “the convictions that one can successfully execute the behavior required to
produce the outcomes” (p. 194). Self-efficacy is different from outcome expectancy, which
characterizes a person’s belief that performing certain actions will lead to a particular outcome.
Self-efficacy theory assumes that a person’s beliefs about whether they can successfully perform
those actions necessary for a particular outcome will determine whether they engage in the
actions at all (Bandura, 1977). Bandura and Locke’s (2003) meta-analysis on self-efficacy
research confirmed that having core beliefs about one’s inability to produce desired effects
decreases one’s motivation to engage in target activities and typically will decrease actual
engagement in target activities, particularly because there is little incentive to productively
struggle as the target task grows complex. Therefore, self-efficacy is a predictor of both behavior
and functioning (Bandura & Locke, 2003).

16
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Self-efficacy theory explains that self-efficacy is not a general self-concept but rather
domain specific. For instance, a person may have high self-efficacy for one of their professional
responsibilities and low self-efficacy in another professional responsibility (Bong & Clark,
1999). This important nuance in self-efficacy theory is particularly useful for examining the
impact of specific self-efficacies on professionals with varied responsibilities, such as
instructional leaders. Dami et al. (2022) found that principals’ self-efficacy for instructional
leadership tasks -as opposed to other managerial tasks- was positively correlated to work
engagement and job satisfaction and negatively correlated to the motivation to leave their jobs;
feelings of low instructional leadership efficacy coincided with the desire to quit the principal
position. Dami et al. (2022) suggested that improving principals’ training in the instructional
leadership responsibilities and allotting them more time to engage in these tasks can increase
their self-efficacy, job satisfactory, work engagement, and lessen the desire to quit. Similarly,
McBrayer et al. (2018) found that school leaders experience higher rates of professional selfefficacy as they engaged in more instructional tasks and lower rates of professional self-efficacy
as they engaged in more managerial tasks.
Self-efficacy theory is a useful theoretical framework for this dissertation as it will afford
an exploration of instructional coaches’ beliefs about their ability to actively serve as
instructional leaders. Hiring instructional coaches is often a substantial investment of finances,
material resources, and time for individual schools, school districts, and larger school systems
(Knight & Skrtic, 2021). Because self-efficacy has such predictive power for achievement of
target tasks, instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for instructional leadership is highly influential
to the capacity-building of teachers, professional development of all school staff, and learning
outcomes of students. The implications of this should be apparent to educational leaders: namely,

17
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
that resources, structures, and supports should be put in place to increase and maintain
instructional coaches’ instructional leadership self-efficacy.

18
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Related Literature
Reviews of literature primarily serve three purposes: to present an argument for the need
to study a topic or phenomenon more extensively, to present research that possibly solves a
problem, or to detail how research findings can possibly enhance current practices (Claxton &
Dolan, 2022). This literature review intends to identify a gap in the literature about instructional
coaches’ experiences and perceptions of their instructional leadership. Although there is much
research about instructional leadership and instructional coaches, both as individual topics and as
the nexus between the two topics, there is little research that specifically explores how
instructional coaches explain and explore their instructional leadership. There is also a dearth of
literature examining how instructional coaches’ ability or inability to be instructional leaders
impacts their beliefs about their ability to be effective instructional coaches. Current literature
around instructional leadership, instructional coaches as instructional leaders, and factors
impacting educators’ self-efficacy are examined in this literature review.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership is the central construct in this research. While discussions of
instructional leadership are pervasive, the concept is understood and implemented in different
and nuanced ways across the globe. This review of literature surrounding instructional leadership
will synthesize various understandings on this subject. First, the historical context of
instructional leadership is explored. Next, the impact of instructional leadership is reviewed.
Last, the factors that limit principals’ ability to act as instructional leaders are discussed.
Historical Context
Instructional leadership is often defined as school leadership that focuses on improving
the learning and instruction of the school (Eadens & Ceballos, 2023; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger

19
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
et al., 1996; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). It can be characterized by school leaders
creating conditions to deepen teachers’ professional learning, improve actual instructional
practices, and advance students’ academic achievement (Murphy et al., 2016). More often than
being explicitly defined, instructional leadership is most understood by three dimensions of its
role in schools: defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and
promoting a positive learning climate (Hallinger, 2005). The first dimension, defining the
school’s mission, involves setting clear, measurable goals and action steps around student
academic outcomes for staff and stakeholders. Through this dimension, instructional leaders lay
out a vision for the work of all in the school (Sanchez & Watson, 2021). The second dimension,
managing the instructional program, includes the core leadership tasks of supervising instruction,
managing curricula and resources, and monitoring student progress (Hallinger, 2005; Sanchez &
Watson, 2021). It is through the exercise of this aspect of instructional leadership that school
staff are equipped with resources to execute the schools’ goals, reflect on progress to goals, and
get feedback on their efforts in executing school goals. The final dimension of instructional
leadership, promoting a positive learning climate, involves duties that promote an environment
of rigorous expectations. These duties include prioritizing and providing professional
development opportunities as well as creating external and internal motivations for students and
teachers to meet goals (Sanchez & Watson, 2021).
The concept of instructional leadership can trace most of its substantive roots in the
United States back to 1980s. During this time, American society began to take a critical look at
the effectiveness of schools to educate students at rigorous levels. Findings such as those in the
National Commission on Excellence in Education’s 1981 report A Nation at Risk led to concern
about the quality of instruction delivered in American schools (Ravitch, 1990). Research into

20
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructionally effective schools found that schools with principals who were strong directive
leaders, held high expectations for students and staff alike, and focused on data-driven student
outcome goals delivered higher quality instruction than schools whose principals did not have
those characteristics (Hallinger, 2005). Thus, the notion of the principal as the instructional
leader of the school came into clearer view, with instructional leaders needing to have a level of
curriculum, content, and pedagogical expertise as well as a strong interpersonal skillset to work
directly with teachers and, at times, students (Cuban, 1984; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger et al.,
1996; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982).
With this notion of principal as instructional leader came the need to prepare aspiring
school leaders for their instructional leadership. One area of preparation needed for instructional
leaders is the sheer ability to balance the time spent in the different roles of their school
leadership (McBrayer et al., 2018). Prior to the intense focus on teaching and learning beginning
in the 1980s, much of school leaders’ tasks revolved around managerial-administrative duties
that see to the basic functioning of the school, such as budgeting, staffing, and operational duties
(Hallinger, 2005). A shift towards instructional leadership saw the need for school leaders to
develop the ability to carry out two different sets of tasks – managerial-administrative tasks and
instructional leadership tasks- within the same timeframe in which they had been used to
carrying out solely managerial-administrative tasks. These new responsibilities required that
school leaders develop an understanding of how to balance these duties, such as by delegating
work and engaging in distributed leadership practices (Lozano, 2024).
Additionally, the mere act of engaging in instructional leadership requires a particular
knowledge base and skillset that must be developed in order to effectively fulfill this role.
Instructional leaders should have extensive and current knowledge about instruction, especially

21
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
different models of instruction and the pedagogical theories underlying them (Lozano, 2024).
Instructional leaders should be familiar with various curricula, as well as methods and criteria for
evaluating curricula and resources to supplement and improve curricula (Hallinger et al., 1996).
Assessment principles, procedures, and data analysis should also be a part of instructional
leaders’ knowledge base (Anderson & Wallin, 2018). Additionally, instructional leaders should
possess strong interpersonal skills, such as the ability to communicate clearly, build
relationships, and empower others (Anderson & Wallin, 2018; Lozano, 2024). Instructional
leaders must also be skilled in resource management and planning (Hallinger et al., 1996;
Lozano, 2024). The extant literature maintains that instructional leaders carry out a complex role
that requires an expansive and nuanced cadre of talents.
Impact of Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership has been found to have an impact on student achievement. This
impact is largely indirect, through the learning environment and professional climate that
instructional leadership cultivates in schools (Hallinger, 2005). In their capacity to manage the
instructional program, instructional leaders create conditions for teachers to obtain and analyze
student data, collaboratively adjust curriculum and plan to meet students’ instructional needs,
and procure and distribute resources (Cox & Mullen, 2023). These duties of the instructional
leaders set the foundation for high-quality instruction in schools, thereby indirectly influencing
students’ academic achievement.
A climate of high academic expectations for students is cultivated through school leaders’
visibility as they fulfill their duties; strong instructional leadership is associated with school
leaders who are regularly present in classrooms to observe both instruction and learning and
consequently offer clear, effectively feedback with hands-on coaching when needed (Cox &

22
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Mullen, 2023; Tremont & Templeton, 2019). Through fostering a strong climate with a clear
focus on instruction and student learning, principals’ instructional leadership contributes to
students’ academic achievement gains (Cox & Mullen, 2023; Tremont & Templeton, 2019;
Pietsch et al., 2023). Pietsch et al.’s (2023) metanalysis of instructional leadership impact has
shown that the relationship between instructional leadership and student achievement has an
effect size range of -.48 to .44, depending on the global context where the instructional
leadership is carried out, with larger impacts experienced in Anglo-influenced settings.
Instructional leadership has also been found to have an indirect effect on student
achievement through its impact on teacher efficacy. Hayward and Ohlson’s (2023) study
revealed that aspects of instructional leadership such as strong communication, being
empowering, demonstrating flexibility, having consideration, and exerting discipline had strong
influence on teachers’ self-efficacy, with communication having the greatest impact on teacher’s
self-efficacy. A core facet of instructional leadership is communication: duties such a vision
setting, designing the school’s mission, setting school goals, creating plans to reach school goals,
developing schedules and structures to foster collaboration amongst teachers, identifying
supports for teachers, and offering feedback all require clear communication from school leaders
to staff members (Hallinger, 2005). Furthermore, Goddard et al.’s (2020) study has shown that
for every standard deviation increase in school leaders’ self-efficacy for instructional leadership,
teachers’ collective self-efficacy increased by .2 standard deviations. Similarly, Elfira et al.’s
study of Indonesian high school teachers found a 72.1% direct effect of principal instructional
leadership on teacher self-efficacy (2021). The beliefs a school leader has about their ability to
be an effective instructional leader influence the way the leader is experienced by teachers, and
this in turn influences the beliefs teachers individually and collectively have about their ability to

23
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
cultivate students’ learning (Goddard, et al., 2021). Teacher efficacy, in turn, has been found to
effect student achievement (Goddard et al., 2019; Goddard et al., 2021; Wang, 2022). Thus,
instructional leadership, through its connection to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to do their jobs
well, impacts student learning outcomes. School leaders, through their instructional leadership,
are driving forces behind the effectiveness of schools’ ability to educate students.
Factors Impacting Principals as Instructional Leaders
At the conception of the instructional leadership construct, school principals were
believed to be the only school staff members responsible for this role. Despite their obvious
contributions to teaching and learning, teachers, content area department heads, assistant
principals, and others in school leadership roles were not typically studied in early discussions of
instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2005). While numerous studies demonstrate the importance
of school principals to schools’ effectiveness and student learning outcomes (Dami et al., 2022;
Gulmez & Isik, 2020; Hayward & Ohlson, 2023; Lozano, 2024), there are various factors that
prohibit principals from consistently acting as instructional leaders. Chief among these factors
are principals’ variety of responsibilities to perform, principals’ duties requiring them to act in
conflicting roles, and principals often having an inadequate knowledge base to fully support
instructional leadership. A deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in these factors
limiting principals’ instructional leadership can illuminate the characteristics needed in other
educators who may fill instructional leadership vacuums.
Numerous Responsibilities. Evolving school principal responsibilities require the
execution of both instructional and managerial tasks, such as handling student discipline issues,
supporting school maintenance staff, completing paperwork, and managing staff (McBrayer, et
al., 2018). Despite principals’ understanding of their need to lead the instruction in schools,

24
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
many find themselves engaged in more pressing managerial duties such as overseeing teacher
attendance for schools to function at a basic level (Noor & Nawab, 2022). McBrayer et al.’s
(2018) study of 27 principals and assistant principals in Georgia found that school leaders
experienced higher rates of professional self-efficacy as they engaged in more instructional tasks
and lower rates of professional self-efficacy as they engaged in more managerial tasks. Ninetythree percent of the study’s participants spent less than 50% of their time engaged in
instructional tasks, which negatively impacted their self-efficacy for instructional leadership by
.06 a standard deviation for every decrease in unit of time spent on instructional tasks (McBrayer
et al., 2018).
Interestingly, a focus on administrative tasks that do not seem impactful to the core
mission of schools tends to impact principals’ role identity. Shaked’s (2022) research on the role
identity of 37 Israeli principals revealed that, due to the varied responsibilities they perform in
their work, 63% of participants perceived themselves as administrators but not necessarily
instructional leaders. Consequently, principals’ lower self-efficacy for instructional leadership
negatively impacts their work engagement and job satisfaction; principals who feel like they
cannot be effective instructional leaders due to competing job duties are more motivated to leave
the profession (Dami et al., 2022). Although principals see the importance of their instructional
leadership and feel more professionally satisfied when they can enact their instructional
leadership, the many urgent needs of schools often limit their ability to do so.
Conflicting Roles. Even in schools where principals can balance job duties and show up
as instructional leaders, they may do so in ineffective ways due to inefficient systems to support
their simultaneous evaluative and supportive roles to teachers. One of the core tenets of
instructional leadership is the development of teachers’ professional practice; instructional

25
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
leaders are tasked with making sure that teachers grow in their instructional abilities (Hallinger,
2005). To do so, an instructional leader must make numerous observations of teachers’
instruction, determine which practices are working well and which practices need improvement,
develop a plan to support teachers in improving their practice, and offer constant feedback
around growth and next steps (Özdemir, 2020). In one vein, these actions can be perceived by
teachers as supportive coaching (Comstock & Margolis, 2021; Damore & Rieckhoff, 2021;
Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021). As principals build relationships and work closely with teachers
to enhance their performance, teachers receive professional development that is tailored
specifically to their individual needs (Kho et al., 2019; Kho et al., 2020). Such individualized
support demands a level of vulnerability and exposure of the teachers; the teacher must say and
be observed in their areas of instructional weakness (Özdemir, 2020).
The vulnerability and exposure that teachers engage in during a supportive coaching
relationship by instructional leaders are often avoided when teachers must be observed and given
feedback in an evaluative manner (Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).
Although there is overlap in many of the duties involved in coaching and evaluating a teacher such as observing instruction and offering feedback- the actions are not perceived in the same
way. Coaching tends to be viewed by teachers as a support, while evaluations are viewed more
negatively (Comstock & Margolis, 2020; Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016).
Kraft and Gilmore’s (2016) study of an urban northeast school district found that 72% of
teachers had significant concerns about evaluations’ impact on their job performance ratings and
overall job security. This negative view, combined with a desire to protect against a perceived
threat to their employment, impacted teachers’ willingness to be vulnerable and expose their
needs for professional growth. Thus, a conflict arises when a teacher’s evaluator and professional

26
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
support are both offered by the same person, such as the school principal. When evaluation and
coaching duties are both performed by the principal, roles may become blurry for both the
principal and the teacher. Pallas’s (2023) study of 141 teachers’ experiences and perceptions
with teacher evaluation systems demonstrated that 58% of teachers were less open about
weaknesses and more exaggerating about growth during coaching sessions, in order to be
evaluated at higher levels. Thus, coaching from evaluators can be less effective than its potential.
Principals’ abilities to be instructional leaders are influenced by the competing and contradictory
roles they may perform.
Inadequate Knowledge Base. Another factor impacting principals’ ability to be
instructional leaders is a lack of knowledge required for the role. One of the prerequisites of
strong instructional leadership is content, curricular, and pedagogical knowledge (Hallinger,
2005). Instructional leaders must know the nuances and particulars of the specific disciplines
taught in schools, staying abreast of the latest research and shifts in content areas (Fuentes &
Jimerson, 2019; Özdemir, 2020). Instructional leaders should be well-acquainted with the
specific curricula used in the school as well. They must be able to support teachers in keeping
with the fidelity and integrity of curriculum, as well as understanding the strengths and
limitations of curricular resources (Fuentes & Jimerson, 2019; Özdemir, 2020; Shaked, 2023).
Lastly, instructional leaders should have a firm understanding of general instructional best
practices.
Shaked’s (2023) study of 38 Israeli principals found that although all participants
interviewed for the study believed that strong content knowledge was a requirement for teachers,
58% of them did not believe it was not necessary for their work as instructional leaders. These
principals understood how teachers’ content knowledge should extend beyond that of what they

27
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
would teach their specific students, as teachers need to understand a larger vertical progression
of students’ learning in their content area to situate instruction in an appropriate context for
students. The principals did not see, however, how their ability to effectively carry out some
instructional leadership duties -such as evaluation and offering feedback- could be severely
impacted by limited content knowledge (Cunningham & Lochmiller, 2020; Shaked, 2023).
Similarly, principals did not have the in-depth curricular knowledge that is considered necessary
for instructional leadership, with 81% of principals interviewed believing that their ability to
manage the curriculum -such as distribute resources equitably and augment curriculum with
supplemental materials- was a sufficient performance of their instructional leadership (Shaked,
2023). The sheer breadth of content, curricula, and grade levels for a school principal to master is
cited by principals as a key factor behind their limited knowledge (Cunningham & Lochmiller,
2020; Shaked, 2023). Many principals leave such in-depth content and curricular knowledge for
department heads and grade-level teacher-leaders to master, while they rely on their pedagogical
knowledge to enact their instructional leadership (Shaked, 2023). Even so, principals often rely
on general pedagogical knowledge and fail to recognize the importance of instructional leaders
having strong pedagogical content knowledge (Cunningham & Lochmiller, 2020; Fuentes &
Jimerson, 2019; Özdemir, 2020; Shaked, 2023).
While principals superficially seem like the obvious choice to be the primary
instructional leaders in their school buildings, factors such as various job duties, conflicting
responsibilities, and a limited knowledge base can hinder principals’ instructional leadership.
Nonetheless, instructional leadership is critical to a school’s ability to be effective. One possible
solution to this conundrum is for schools to identify school leaders other than the principal -

28
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
middle leaders- to fulfill instructional leadership duties. Hiring instructional coaches is one such
avenue through with strong instructional leadership can be carried out.
Instructional Coaching
Many schools and school districts employ instructional coaches; recent students show
that 59% of public schools have at least one instructional coach on their staff (Ng, 2024). The
main goal of instructional coaching is to strengthen instructional practices and deepen student
learning. While instructional coaches across the globe have the same goal, they work towards it
in various ways through different contexts. The review of literature on instructional coaching
begins with an analysis of generally accepted instructional coaching best practices. Next is an
examination of the characteristics of instructional coaches that make them well-suited to be
instructional leaders, followed by a review of the factors that inhibit coaches’ instructional
leadership.
Instructional Coaching Best Practices
Throughout the late 20th century and into the present day, instructional coaching has
emerged as a form of job-embedded professional development for teachers to improve their
practice and positively influence student outcomes. Instructional coaching models find their roots
in Joyce and Showers (1980) peer coaching model. The peer coaching model hypothesized that
partnering teachers with consultants or outside expert peers to engage in ongoing modeling new
skills, practicing new skills, and receiving feedback on the use of new skills would lead to
longer-lasting and more proficient implementation of new practices than a single-event training.
Research confirmed that regular and consistent coaching experiences result in more transfer of
new teachings than trainings alone (Baker & Showers, 1984; Showers, 1982; Showers, 1987).

29
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Thus, instructional coaching came to supplement traditional models of professional development
in many schools.
Since the 1980s, various instructional coaching models have been developed. Coaching
models provide a framework for instructional coaches to support educators in growing and
reaching their goals. Bambrick-Santoyo’s directive incremental coaching (Bambrick-Santoyo &
Saphier, 2016), Knight’s (2021) impact coaching, Aguilar’s (2024) transformational coaching,
and content-focused coaching are leading coaching models across the United States. Despite the
differences and nuances among various models concerning principles and undergirding
ideologies, there are generally accepted best practices for instructional coaching. Core practices
for effective instructional coaching include understanding and using adult learning principles,
enacting consistent coaching cycles and structures, and directly linking teachers’ coaching needs
and growth to impact students.
Inherent in instructional coaching is adult learning. Adults learn in different ways and
have different general learning needs than children, so instructional coaches must approach their
work in different ways than they would approach classroom instruction with students (Knowles
et al., 2005). Adult learning theory names the following as differentiating adult learners from
child learners: a readiness to learn and intrinsic motivation when the need for learning is
apparent; the desire for control and self-direction in the learning process; a desire for a problemcentered, results-driven orientation to learning; the need for practical and immediate use of new
learnings, and acknowledgement of the experience and knowledge being brought to the learning
(Knowles et al., 2005). Instructional coaches can use adult learning theory to support teachers’
professional growth. Instructional coaches often situate teachers’ practice goals through observed
areas of concern in their classroom and/or instruction. Thus, coaching interactions address a

30
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
specific problem for teachers, and teachers may feel intrinsically motivated to engage in
coaching. As coaches and teachers build relationships and collaborate, coaches should give
teachers opportunities to direct elements of their learning, such as identifying how and when to
practically apply new learnings or determining a new coaching goal (Knight, 2021; Knowles et
al., 2005). Most importantly, coaches should recognize the experience and skillset that teachers
come to them with, leveraging those assets to launch teachers’ learning (Knight, 2021, Psencik et
al., 2019).
Consistency is an important part of instructional coaching, and it can help build trust
between coaches and teachers. One best practice for instructional coaches to establish
consistency is to implement a coaching model with regular coaching cycles (Knight, 2021).
Many coaching models establish the need for at least three coaching interactions in a cycle: a
coaching meeting to plan a lesson, review student data, or discuss a problem of practice; a lesson
in which either the coach models a specific strategy for the teacher or the teacher’s instructional
practice is observed, and a reflection session to debrief the implemented lessons, note teachers’
progress, and determine next steps (Knight, 2021; Perret, 2023). Such a coaching cycle provides
teachers with a framework for continuous improvement. This continuous improvement through
consistent coaching can turn into a form of job embedded professional development that teachers
rely on for support (Knight, 2021; Perret, 2023).
The best instructional coaching is grounded in goals (Knight & Skrtic, 2023; Perret,
2023). Through goal setting and action planning, coaches and teachers develop a clear roadmap
of where the collaboration is headed and the route they will take to get there. Because the
ultimate purpose of improved teacher practice is improved student outcomes, a goal-setting best
practice for coaches is to ground goals in student outcomes (Perret, 2023). When coaching goals

31
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
are set in terms of student outcomes, both teachers and instructional coaches are reminded that
the school’s mission is grounded in impact to students. Student-centered coaching goals are often
surrounding achievement data, but they do not necessarily have to be. In lieu of student
achievement data, student-centered coaching goals can revolve around student behaviors, such as
time on task or the number of students actively engaged in a lesson (Perret, 2023).
Instructional Coaches as Instructional Leaders
In addition to these best practices, there are many commonalities amongst instructional
coaches in a variety of settings that can characterize instructional coaching in general. Quite a
few of these aspects of instructional coaching can posit coaches as uniquely able to fulfill
instructional leaderships duties. Instructional coaches have the knowledge base and skillset,
trusting relationships, and hierarchical position in school systems that can allow them to be
effective instructional leaders.
Knowledge and Skillset. One of the characteristics of instructional coaches that supports
their instructional leadership is the high level of content knowledge that they possess. While
general instructional coaching positions are widely available, many instructional coaching
positions are domain specific; positions such a literacy, math, or science instructional coach are
common in schools and districts that offer instructional coaching. Typically, one of the
requirements for being a content-specific instructional coach is demonstrating a mastery-level of
the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for the discipline being coached
(Ippolito & Bean, 2019). While a cursory understanding of content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge can buoy the work of a school leader, an instructional leader often needs indepth content-specific understandings to manage schools’ instructional programming. For
example, decisions around curricular choices and feedback after instructional observations are

32
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
greatly informed by the extent to which the instructional leader understands the corresponding
content area (Shaked, 2023). Moreover, an instructional leader should be perceived by staff as
capable of leading and as someone who can be turned to for guidance and support (Anderson &
Wallin, 2018; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger et al., 1996; Lozano, 2024). Teachers may have
difficulty associating instructional leadership characteristics to someone who is known to have
considerably less content knowledge than other non-leaders on the staff (Cunningham &
Lochmiller, 2020; Shaked, 2023). Instructional coaches, particularly content-specific
instructional coaches, are often the leaders in their buildings in terms of content knowledge
(Ippolito & Bean, 2019). In fact, it is often not only expected but also a professional
responsibility of many instructional coaches to stay current with the latest research in their field,
attending conferences and trainings to bring this information back to their schools. Because of
their duty to sustain a mastery of content knowledge, instructional coaches are innately able to
enact some aspects of instructional leadership.
Trusting Relationships. A tenet of instructional coaching is an emphasis on building
trusting relationships (Kane & Rosenquist, 2019; Reid, 2019; Woulfin et al., 2023); collaboration
grounded in trusting relationships can enable instructional coaches to act as instructional leaders.
Instructional leadership requires that school leaders identify individual and collective teacher
weaknesses in order to provide opportunities for development (Hallinger et al., 1996). Teachers
may be wary to highlight their areas for growth, particularly if these weaknesses are exposed to
someone in authority to them, such as a principal (Comstock & Margolis, 2021; Damore &
Rieckhoff, 2021; Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021). This reluctance on the teachers’ behalf can be
lessened by the development of a strong relationship with the principal (Wallin, 2019).
Unfortunately, many principals cite their numerous and ever-evolving job responsibilities as

33
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
prohibiting them from cultivating deep relationships with their staff that will enable their
instructional leadership (Dami et al., 2021; Wallin, 2019). For instance, Wallin’s (2019)
qualitative study of ten rural Canadian principals noted that participants scoffed at the commonly
expected notion of spending 50% of their workday supervising and providing instructional
leadership. According to the principals in this study, relationship-building instructional
leadership practices like classroom visits came in a distant second place to their other duties, and
this led these principals to feel guilt over their poorly developed relationships with teachers.
Because developing strong rapport and relationships with teachers is a best practice of
instructional coaching (Kho et al., 2019; Knight, 2021), instructional coaches may be better
suited than some principals to fulfill instructional leadership roles. Successful coaching
relationships can develop when teachers view the instructional coach as a partner with the
teachers’ desires and needs in mind, not as an outside agent with only the school’s or district’s
aims in mind or, even worse, an adversary looking to catch teachers who are not meeting
expectations (Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021). Munson and Saclarides’s (2022) study of 28
instructional coaches in an urban, southeastern school district found that the participants’ lack of
evaluative authority over teachers enabled them to be seen as working in tandem with teachers,
and to more easily build trust with teachers. Consequently, the study participants were able to
enact relational strategies to gain enthusiastic access to classrooms, a core prerequisite of
instructional leadership (Woulfin et al., 2023).
Building trust in an instructional coaching relationship starts with a foundation of
partnership, reliability, consistency, and confidentiality (Cardenas et al., 2024). Most
importantly, building relationships requires time. Kane and Rosenquist (2019) suggest that
district instructional coaches’ schedules be designed with relationships in mind, with coaches

34
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
dedicating longer amounts of time in single school buildings so that they are more visible and
have opportunities to partner with teachers in meaningful ways. Similarly, Woulfin et al. (2023)
recommend that instructional coaches be afforded opportunities to gain local context, deeply
understanding the schools, relationships, and dynamics where they work so that they can best
connect with teachers. Instructional coaches’ relationships with school leaders are important as
well, particularly if coaches are enacting instructional leadership duties. Kane and Rosenquist
(2019) advise that principals establish regular meeting times with instructional coaches to not
only evaluate the impact of coaching on student outcomes, but to also support instructional
coaches as leaders in the building. Relationship building is at the core of both instructional
coaching and instructional leadership, and thus instructional coaches may be primed to perform
instructional leadership duties.
Hierarchical Position. Yet another quality of instructional coaching that suggests it is
compatible with instructional leadership is the hierarchical position that instructional coaches
occupy in many schools. In many settings, instructional coaches are viewed as a part of schools’
middle leadership; while they are outside of the classroom and hierarchically above teachers,
they fall below top leaders like principals and assistant principals (Shaked, 2024). Also, although
instructional coaches are hierarchically above teachers, they typically do not have authority over
teachers -an intentional decision to support open and transparent relationships with teachers
(Munson and Saclarides, 2022). In Hashim’s (2020) research, the author asserts that instructional
coaches exercise an important leadership role in implementing systemic changes on school,
interschool, and district levels specifically due to their hierarchical position. Coaches in this
study navigated different models of brokering information amongst different educational actors,
up and down organizational hierarchies. The agility and success with which instructional coaches

35
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
engaged in brokering shaped districts’ abilities to implement reform, as well as schools’ and
individual educators’ abilities to align to these reforms (Hashim 2020).
This type of systemic work in instructional improvement is afforded to instructional
coaches when top-level school leaders like principals engage in distributed leadership practices.
Distributed leadership practices necessitate various educational leaders existing on a leadership
continuum, from quasi-leaders like teacher-leaders and instructional coaches to traditional
leaders like school administrators and central office personnel (Eadens & Ceballos, 2023).
Although instructional coaches in particular work in a hierarchical space between teachers and
top school leaders, they perform many of the same tasks as principals. Research has found that
when principals prioritize elevating and publicly giving significance to instructional personnel
who occupy these middle leadership roles, such as including them in school management teams,
the principal publicly showing trust and seeking counsel from the middle leader, and giving the
middle leader decision-making power, middle leaders are seen as the having power and authority
to enact instructional improvement in schools (Eadens & Ceballos, 2023; Shaked, 2024). These
steps also help mold schools’ cultural dynamics to be conducive to the middle leaders’
responsibilities (Shaked, 2024).
Instructional Coaches’ Ability to Be Instructional Leaders
Because of the many principles and practices they espouse, instructional coaches have the
potential to be hugely influential instructional leaders in many schools. All this potential,
however, may be rendered meaningless because various barriers significantly hinder
instructional coaches’ ability to act as instructional leaders. While some of these barriers are
situational and specific to local contexts, numerous barriers are systemic and wide-reaching.
Among these barriers are confusion surrounding the role of instructional coaches, the use of

36
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional coaches’ time, schools’ infrastructure for distributed leadership, and a lack of
training for instructional leadership.
Roles and Responsibilities. One of the most foundational obstacles for instructional
coaches to act as instructional leaders is misunderstanding about instructional coaches’ roles and
responsibilities. Core responsibilities such as setting goals for schools, professionally developing
staff, and engaging in organizational design cause instructional coaches to act in an instructional
leadership capacity (Kho et al., 2019; L’Allier et al., 2010). Thus, to be effective, literacy
coaches must both be seen as and see themselves as instructional leaders. Unfortunately,
instructional coaches often play a variety of roles, and this may obfuscate their instructional
leadership abilities. Some of these roles, such as resource provider, counselor, data coach,
mentor, curriculum specialist, instructional specialist, school leader, align with coaches enacting
their instructional leadership (Kho, et al., 2019; Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021; Miller et al.,
2019). Other roles inhibit instructional coaches’ instructional leadership perception, both of
themselves and by others. For instance, Kho et al.’s (2019) study of ten Malaysian instructional
coaches reported that due coaches carrying out work directly with students to tutor and provide
learning interventions, their ability to instructionally lead schools may be obscured. All the
coaches in this study reported feeling an inability to build meaningful professional relationships
with teachers due to confusion around what their role was. Furthermore, when the instructional
coaches’ schedules were intentionally designed for them to perform in school support services,
like field trip chaperones or making photocopies, their capacity to be seen by school staff as
instructional leaders was limited. The very perception of instructional coaches’ inability to act as
an instructional leader has a negative impact on the actual ability to serve as instructional leader,

37
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
as it not only impacts the nature of their work but also impacts their efficacy to be instructional
leaders (Voelkel et al., 2023; Woodward & Thoma, 2021).
At times, instructional coaches’ professional responsibilities all align with instructional
leadership, but confusion still exists about their role. This scenario occurs when no clear
communication about instructional coaches’ roles has been shared with teachers. Miller et al.
(2019) describe how communication and messaging from school and district leaders greatly
impacted how new-to-the-field instructional coaches are perceived, received, and able to perform
necessary job functions. Top leaders such as district officials and school principals have a duty to
clearly communicate not only the school’s mission and goals, but also how each member of the
school community contributes to the achievement of the school’s mission and goals. When toplevel leaders do not effectively communicate the capacity in which middle-level leaders like
instructional coaches will work with others, confusion ensues, and middle-level leaders are
limited in their ability to function well (Miller et al., 2019; Reid, 2019). District officials’ and
school principals’ specific actions, such as clearly defining through word and deed the
responsibilities of everyone affiliated with the coaching program, creating accessible time and
space opportunities for teacher-coach interactions to occur, and developing multi-way trusting
relationships, can enable instructional coaches to successfully focus on their coaching and
instructional leadership responsibilities (Reid, 2019).
Use of Time. A related factor impacting instructional coaches’ ability to exercise
instructional leadership is how their time is used. As with principals, instructional coaches have a
variety of responsibilities to fulfill (Kho et al., 2019; Ippolito & Bean, 2019; Neumerski, 2012;
Woodward & Thoma, 2021). Some of these duties are closely aligned to coaching duties, such as
planning professional development sessions, analyzing student data, meeting with teachers,

38
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
supporting scheduling to afford time for professional learning communities, planning modeled
lessons, studying curricula, observing instruction, and crafting feedback (Hashim, 2020; Ippolito
& Bean, 2019; Knight, 2015). Other duties that instructional coaches must perform are less
aligned to coaching duties. Responsibilities such as substitute teaching, working as an
administrative assistant, organizing resources and materials, coordinating field trips, and lunch
and recess duty detract from instructional coaches’ capacity for instructional leadership (Ippolito
& Bean, 2019; Kane & Rosenquist, 2018; Miller et al., 2019). When instructional coaches spend
too much of their time engaged in non-coaching duties, teachers and even school leaders can
misunderstand how and whether instructional coaches can impact teacher practice and student
achievement on a large-scale, systemic level (Woodward & Thoma, 2021).
Time spent in coaching duties affects instructional coaches’ ability to be instructional
leaders in several ways. On a superficial level, the more time teachers spend with instructional
coaches, the greater the opportunity for teachers to improve their instructional practice (Hashim,
2020; Kane & Rosenquist, 2018). Most scholars agree that instructional coaching has evolved to
a form of individualized, job-embedded, ongoing professional development for teachers (Kane &
Rosenquist, 2018; Kho et al., 2019; Kho et al., 2020). As such, instructional coaching is more
effective than other traditional models of professional development at cultivating long-lasting
improvement in instruction and learning (Kane & Rosenquist, 2018, Knight & Skrtic, 2021).
Instructional coaching positions teachers and coaches in a continuous feedback loop around
goals that are tailored to each school’s and/or teachers’ specific needs (Knight & Skrtic; 2021);
this contributes to instructional coaching having such transformational influences on teaching
and learning. In order for teachers to access these benefits and ultimately enhance student

39
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
learning, teachers must have regular and frequent opportunities to collaborate with instructional
coaches. Without them, instructional coaching loses some of its instructional leadership potency.
On a different level, spending too much time on non-coaching duties also impacts how
well instructional coaches can perform their coaching duties. Building trusting relationships is a
key element of successful coaching; the amount of time that instructional coaches are able to
spend with teachers directly impacts their ability to cultivate trust. For instance, Kane and
Rosenquist ‘s (2018) study of 23 middle school coaches across four school districts in the
Midwest found that coaches hired by a school district were able to spend an average of 92% their
time working directly with teachers, but struggled to build trusting relationships with teachers
since they were spread across multiple buildings and met with individual teachers less
frequently; school-hired coaches, on the other hand, had ease creating trusting relationships with
teacher but were only able to spend 40-66% of their time directly coaching teachers due to
principals assigning them to meet schools’ more urgent, immediate needs like tutoring or
substitute teaching. Both district and school instructional coaches had schedules that did not
allow them to build strong, trusting relationships with the teachers they coached. School leaders
must create building schedules that facilitate professional learning opportunities between
teachers and instructional coaches during the school day and afford instructional coaches the
maximum amount of time possible to perform coaching duties (Saclarides & Munson, 2024).
Infrastructure for Distributed Leadership. Instructional coaches’ ability to be
instructional leaders may also be hampered if there is a lack of infrastructure in the
organizational leadership systems of the school. Because school principals have long been
believed to be the instructional leader of schools, distributed leadership infrastructure must be
established to support other school leaders assuming instructional leadership roles (McBrayer et

40
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
al., 2018; Tang et al., 2022). A distributed leadership framework offers systems and structures
that not only support middle leaders to enact their leadership, but it also encourages others to
view them as leaders (Tang et al., 2022; Voelkel et al. 2023). Key elements of distributed
leadership infrastructure include access to information, decision-making power, and the ability to
influence others (Neumerski, 2012). When instructional coaches work in settings whose
infrastructure does not support these elements, instructional leadership is difficult to enact.
Access to various types of information is necessary for effective instructional leadership.
Core responsibilities of instructional leaders include analyzing student achievement data and
instructional data, setting goals, making plans to reach those goals, monitoring and evaluating the
progress of those goals, adjusting plans, determining the professional learning needs of school
staff, and creating whole-group, small-group, and individualized professional learning
experiences for educators (Dasci et al., 2024; Hallinger, 2005). Each of these responsibilities
requires that instructional leaders have access to relevant data to inform how these
responsibilities are to be carried out. In order for instructional coaches to act as instructional
leaders and carry out some of these responsibilities, structures must be in place for them to have
regular and systematic access to pertinent information (Ippolito & Bean, 2019; Marsh et al.,
2015). Such access can easily be provided through distributed leadership practices such as
regularly meeting with school principals or membership in school leadership teams (Ippolito &
Bean, 2019; Voelkel et al. 2023). Unfortunately, some school leaders do not extend these
distributed leadership practices to instructional coaches for a variety of the aforementioned
reasons like confusion around coaches’ roles, poor use of coaches’ time, or the principals’
inability to manage their tasks (Ippolito & Bean, 2019; Kane & Rosenquist, 2018; Miller et al.,

41
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
2019; Woodward & Thoma, 2021). Without access to information, instructional coaches struggle
to carry out core duties of instructional leaders.
Instructional coaches may also struggle to carry out core duties of instructional leaders if
they do not have decision-making authority. Instructional leaders must make numerous decisions
that impact entire school systems and a variety of stakeholders. For example, in a localized
context, instructional leaders are responsible for deciding how to schedule instruction to
prioritize collaboration for instructional planning and professional learning communities
(Ippolito & Bean; 2019). On a larger context, instructional leaders decide how to implement
educational law and policy changes, determining how many resources to allocate to different
priorities, and how to allocate them equitably (Hashim, 2020). Instructional leaders have the
ability to make policy, as well as advocate for policies or policy change (Hashim, 2020). In
general, it is instructional leaders’ duty to be influential over the instruction and learning in their
context, and much of that influence is derived from the ability to make decisions. If instructional
coaches are to act as instructional leaders, they must also be influential over instruction and
learning through their ability to make decisions in their schools. While instructional coaches may
not be afforded the ultimate decision-making authority, distributed leadership practices
recommend that they at least have a seat at the proverbial decision-making table to give their
input and wield their influence over decisions (Hashim, 2020; McBrayer et al., 2018).
Distributed leadership infrastructures like memberships on leadership teams, school committees,
and specialized taskforces allow middle leaders like instructional coaches to participate in the
decision-making process. Lewis (2019) asserted that principals may not understand enough about
instructional coaches’ roles or preparation to even consider them for distributed leadership,
systemically preferring other middle leaders for instructional leadership roles. School principals

42
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
must be intentional to not only have these structures but also to deliberately include instructional
coaches in them.
Instructional Leadership Preparation. Lastly, a lack of specific preparation for
instructional leadership hinders instructional coaches from enacting their instructional leadership.
Neumerski’s review of research on various school leaders’ enactment of instructional leadership
shows instructional coaches in general are rarely prepared for instructional leadership or viewed
as instructional leaders by the teachers they coach (2012). Lewis’s (2019) comparative case
study of instructional leadership in two schools in California demonstrated that although school
leaders saw instructional coaches as an extension of them with instructional expertise that gives
schools the ability to reach goals and enact their vision, they believed that instructional coaches
still need to have specific preparations to develop the skills and knowledge for effective
instructional leadership. Similarly, Highland and Woods (2024) found that despite middle
leaders like instructional coaches assuming complex and highly consequential responsibilities
such as observing and giving feedback on peer teachers’ instruction, formal training for their
position prior to assuming the responsibilities and ongoing training while in the middle
leadership role was relatively nonexistent. Although ongoing pre-service and in-service
professional development can strengthen instructional coaches’ and other middle leaders’
capacity to positively impact student learning outcomes, many schools and districts do not have
systems and structures in place to facilitate these learning experiences for instructional coaches
(Highland & Woods, 2024).
Additionally, there are no specific, uniform criteria for instructional coaches to become
instructional coaches. Instructional coaches come to the profession through various avenues. In
some cases, teachers are elevated into instructional coaching positions for schools through the

43
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
direct recommendations of principals and school leaders (Highland & Woods, 2024; Lewis,
2019). In other scenarios, schools and districts require that instructional coaches have specialist
certification, such as reading, math, or technology specialist certifications. This prerequisite
gives some assurance that instructional coaches have a certain level of content knowledge and
skill, as preparation programs for specialist certification attend to state and national standards on
candidates’ proficiency in various domains such as foundational knowledge, curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and evaluation (International Literacy Association, National Council of
Supervisors of Mathematics). Other instructional coaches must demonstrate mastery of schoolor district-specific priorities, such as specific curricula or teaching methods (Lewis, 2019;
Lozano, 2024). The requirements for instructional coaches to enter the profession vary widely
from context to context. Because there are no standard criteria for the role, there is no way to
ensure that all instructional coaches have proficiency in a basic, standardized knowledge and
skill set. Without this, some instructional coaches may come to their position ill-equipped to act
as instructional leaders. More importantly, there is no uniform way to determine which
instructional coaches have the necessary knowledge and skills to act as instructional leaders.
Educators’ Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy describes a person’s beliefs about their ability to succeed at performing a
specific task (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is a domain specific concept; one’s self-efficacy in
one task or area can be completely different and unaffected by self-efficacy in a separate task or
area. Generally, our beliefs about our abilities to achieve goals arise from four sources: mastery
experiences and vicarious experiences, the two primary sources of self-efficacy, as well as social
persuasion and physiological states (Bandura, 1977; Hussain & Khan, 2022). Mastery
experiences are those a person has of being successful in a task they are attempting while

44
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
vicarious experiences are those of another person being successful in the same task one is
attempting (Gale et al., 2021). Social persuasion describes how feedback, such as encouragement
or discouragement, influences a person’s belief in their ability to complete tasks, and
physiological states refers to how a person’s emotional well-being may impact their beliefs in
their ability to accomplish tasks (Hussain & Khan, 2022).
Educators’ self-efficacy has become an important concept to study because it impacts
many aspects of schools’ functioning. For example, Caprara et al. (2006) found teachers’ selfefficacy to be related to job satisfaction and job stress levels. According to Gulmez and Isik
(2020), principals’ self-efficacy was positively correlated to transformational leadership styles, in
which principals increase the teachers’, students’, and staff’s awareness about the importance of
school goals, motivate the group to act to reach the goals, and help followers to reach lofty
targets. Conversely, principals with low self-efficacy were more apt to demonstrate transactional
leadership, in which school leaders and school community members engaged in isolated
interactions of give and take without focus on transforming followers -school community
members- to focus on school goals (Gulmez & Isik, 2020). In a similar vein, understanding how
instructional coaches’ self-efficacy is impacted by their instructional leadership could illuminate
some high leverage influences on schools’ functioning. Two key self-efficacy outcomes that may
be influenced by instructional coaches’ work as instructional leaders are motivation for work
engagement and student achievement.
Work Engagement
Self-efficacy has been shown to impact educators’ engagement in their work. In one
sense, self-efficacy impacts motivation to engage in work. Dami et al. (2022) found that
principals’ self-efficacy for instructional leadership influenced their work engagement and

45
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
motivation to quit, with high self-efficacy for instructional leadership predicting increased
motivation to work and decreased motivation to quit while low self-efficacy for instructional
leadership correlating to decreased motivation to work and increased motivation to quit.
Similarly, McBrayer et al. (2018) explored the connection between school leaders’ self-efficacy
for instructional leadership and the amount of time they spent in managerial and instructional
tasks, concluding that school leaders with high self-efficacy for instructional leadership are better
able to balance their tasks and spend more time in instructional leadership tasks than principals
with low self-efficacy for instructional leadership. These findings may be connected to
Skaalvik’s (2020) findings on the connection between school leaders’ self-efficacy and task
avoidance. Skaalvik (2020) asserts that when an educator’s self-efficacy in a domain -such as
instructional leadership - is low, the educator will feel unsuccessful. Seeking to avoid the
discomfort associated with limited mastery experiences, the educator will consequently avoid
work tasks in that domain and effectively disengage from that work (Skaalvik, 2020).
These findings may have potentially strong implications for instructional coaches who
function as instructional leaders. Several factors may hinder instructional coaches’ ability to act
as instructional leaders, with time usage being a significant factor (Ippolito & Bean, 2019). If
instructional coaches spend too much time engaging in non-coaching work, they are limited in
their capacity to be instructional leaders (Ippolito & Bean, 2019; Kane & Rosenquist, 2018;
Miller et al., 2019).). This limited capacity for instructional leadership may negatively impact
their self-efficacy for instructional leadership. Consequently, a lowered self-efficacy for
instructional leadership tasks may lead to less engagement in instructional leadership tasks,
thereby decreasing already limited amounts of time instructional coaches have for instructional
leadership. Put another way, having core beliefs about one’s inability to produce desired effects

46
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
decreases one’s motivation to engage in target activities and typically will decrease actual
engagement in target activities, particularly because there is little incentive to productively
struggle as the target task grows complex (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Tamari, 2020). Because
instructional coaches may fill an instructional leadership void in many settings, there is a need to
examine how their feelings around their ability to be instructional leaders are influenced by and
influence their motivation to engage in this work.
Student Achievement
Educators’ self-efficacy is positively correlated to student achievement. Teachers with
high self-efficacy can have a positive impact on students in several ways, including creating
positive class environments, increasing student engagement, using more effective teaching
strategies and practices, and increasing student motivation and self-efficacy (Hussain & Khan,
2023; Wang, 2022). All these factors contribute to a climate for high quality instruction, which
then translates to increased student learning (Wang, 2022). Additionally, teachers’ individual
self-efficacies contribute to the collective self-efficacy, which is the belief that the group's
capabilities can improve student learning (Goddard et al., 2021; Hayward & Ohlson, 2023;
Hussain & Khan, 2023). Collective self-efficacy is developed when teachers work together to
achieve goals, learn from each other, and receive support from administrators (Bozkurt et al.,
2021). When teachers’ collective self-efficacy grows through their experiences together, they
deliver more effective instruction to struggling students, thereby growing student achievement
(Bozkurt et al., 2021).
Although instructional coaches may have little direct impact on student achievement,
their work with teachers directly contributes to teachers’ individual and collective self-efficacy
and thus instructional coaches indirectly impact student achievement through their ability to

47
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
perform instructional leadership duties. Teachers’ individual self-efficacy is positively impacted
when they are supported with professional learning experiences to grow their abilities,
particularly their skillset for instructional challenges (Gale et al., 2021). Instructional coaches
provide job-embedded opportunities for regular professional learning. Collaborating with an
instructional coach can support teachers’ individual self-efficacies (DeSimone, 2020).
Additionally, instructional coaches often work to provide collaborative spaces to teacher learning
in the form of professional learning communities or group/team coaching (Hashim, 2020; Kho et
al., 2019). This regular collaborative work to increase the knowledge and skills of the group has
positive impacts on teachers’ collective self-efficacy (Brandmo et al., 2021; DeSimone, 2020;
Goddard et al., 2021). Having a deeper understanding of instructional coaches’ experiences as
instructional leaders can contribute to nuanced understandings of how instructional coaches
impact teacher efficacy and, ultimately, student achievement.
Summary
In this review of literature, important issues concerning instructional coaches’ instructional
leadership were examined. The literature review indicated instructional leadership, a relatively
recent brand of leadership that involves specifically overseeing teaching and learning in schools,
impacts student achievement and teacher efficacy. Traditionally, school principals were thought
of as solely responsible for instructional leadership. As principals’ responsibilities expand,
systems fail to support the conflicting roles that they must occupy, and principal preparation
programs do not equip principals with a depth of knowledge and skills to act alone as
instructional leaders. Middle leaders can exercise instructional leadership, and instructional
coaches are particularly well-suited to be instructional leaders due to their extensive content,
curricular, and pedagogical knowledge, emphasis on building trusting relationships, and

48
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
organizational position. The review of literature indicated that several factors inhibit instructional
coaches from enacting their instructional leadership, including confusion surrounding
instructional coaches’ role, poor use of instructional coaches’ time, a lack of infrastructure for
distribute leadership, and inadequate preparation for instructional leadership. Additionally, this
literature review explored how educators’ self-efficacy is negatively impacted when they
encounter obstacles that block them from fulfilling core responsibilities. Some of these negative
impacts include decreased job performance, lower student achievement, and increased
motivation to quit. Considering the review of literature, a compelling case is made to study
instructional coaches’ experiences and perceptions of their instructional leadership, as it may
have significant impact on schools and students.

49
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the research methodology for this qualitative
phenomenological study exploring the experiences and perspectives of instructional coaches and
their instructional leadership. A phenomenological research approach will allow for an in-depth
understanding of the complexities that instructional coaches experience surrounding their
instructional leadership. It will also provide a way to analyze the data to understand how these
experiences and perspectives impact instructional coaches’ self-efficacy. The research design,
research questions, study participants, researcher positionality, procedures, data collection and
analysis approach, and trustworthiness of this study are explained in this chapter.
Research Design and Rationale
The phenomena that will be explored in this study are instructional coaches’ experiences
as instructional leaders and perspectives about how their ability or inability to be instructional
leaders impacts their self-efficacy. For this research, a qualitative study was selected. Qualitative
research designs afford the researcher opportunities to deeply understand the “why” and “how”
behind a phenomenon (Eddies-Hirsch, 2015). As opposed to quantitative studies, which test
specific hypotheses and examine relationships among variables in generalizable ways, qualitative
studies allow the researcher to explore study participants’ experiences and perspectives in robust
and nuanced ways (Malterud, 2011). Because this research is intended to develop a
contextualized understanding of a phenomenon and to give voice to the research participants,
qualitative research is appropriate for this study.
More specifically, a phenomenological research design was applied to this study.
Phenomenological studies examine lived experiences and how people interpret these experiences

50
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Busetto et al., 2020; Patton, 2014; Stolz, 2022). More specifically,
phenomenology seeks to investigate the universal features of consciousness while avoiding
assumptions about the external world (Atkins & Wallace, 2015; Patton, 2014). In this way,
phenomenological researchers can describe phenomena as they appear to those that experience
them as well as explore their significance.
Phenomenology can be subdivided into two different approaches: transcendental
phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology. Transcendental phenomenology has its roots
with Edmund Husserl. Husserl believed that a true understanding of the essences of experiences
and phenomena is free from one’s preconceived ideas and biases (Glendinning, 2007). This
process of a researcher quarantining their preconceptions is known as bracketing (Glendinning,
2007) and is the chief difference between transcendental phenomenology and hermeneutic
phenomenology. Hermeneutic phenomenology, founded by Husserl’s student Martin Heidegger,
focuses on how the participants in a study interpret their experiences. Through exploring the
meaning that people ascribe to their specific experiences, researchers can give rich descriptions
of phenomena (Eddies-Hirsch, 2015). This study will employ a hermeneutic phenomenological
approach, as it will allow the researcher to acknowledge her own experiences and biases as an
instructional coach, exploring how they may potentially influence interpretation of the data.
Research Questions
Central Research Question
What are the instructional leadership experiences of instructional coaches in a large,
urban city?
Sub-Question One
How do instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional leadership?

51
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Sub-Question Two
What factors influence how instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional
leadership?
Setting and Participants
This study will take place in K-12 school settings in an urban school district in a major
city in the northeast region of the United States. Study participants are instructional coaches at
these schools and teachers who are coached by these instructional coaches.
Setting
The setting of this study includes multiple schools in a major urban northeastern city
school district. These schools include elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools.
These school settings were selected for this study due to the variety of administrative leadership
styles, organizational structures, and distributive leadership practices present at these schools. A
range of grade levels, administrative leadership styles, organizational structures, and distributed
leadership practices is important to this study so that diverse experiences and perspectives could
contribute to a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon.
Participants
A purposive sample composed of instructional coaches with at least five years of
teaching experience and two years of instructional coaching experience was used for the
interviews of this study. Purposive sampling will allow the researcher to choose participants that
afford an in-depth exploration of the research questions (Patton, 2014). Saturation of data is used
to determine the number of participants in a qualitative study. Saturation occurs in qualitative
studies during the data collection and analysis process, when data becomes repetitive and no new
themes are discerned (Patton, 2014).Saturation of data was reached at 10 instructional coaches

52
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
and thus only 10 instructional coaches were used in this study.
Additionally, a purposive sample composed of teachers who are coached by the
instructional coaches was used for the focus groups in this study. In addition to being coached by
the instructional coach, the teachers must also have at least two years of teaching experience and
at least six months of partnership with the instructional coach beyond their first year of teaching
in order to be considered for this study. These requirements helped to ensure that teachers had
enough professional experience in general, understanding of coaching in their context, and
interactions with their instructional coaches to offer meaningful reflections for this study.
Researcher Positionality
Interpretive Framework
The interpretive framework through which this study was conducted is social
constructivism. A social constructivist framework posits that knowledge is not an objective
concept to be obtained but rather a social construct that is created by people through their
interactions with others and their environment (Lee, 2012; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Under this
paradigm, people interpret their experiences and actively create knowledge, assigning meaning
to things through shared understanding (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As such, social constructivism
is subjective; it assumes that there may be multiple truths, realities, knowledge, and ways of
knowing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yanto & Ramdani, 2023).
As a qualitative research framework, social constructivist research revolves around the
meaning-making process. Unlike positivist philosophies which focus on discerning objective
truth, social constructivism explores how individuals make meaning from their experiences and
perceptions. Thus, social interaction is a critical element of social constructivism. Shared
experiences, societal norms, and common values are the lens through which individuals interpret

53
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
experiences and create knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, the context in which
knowledge is created impacts how people come to various understandings. Social constructivist
research seeks to explore and explain the relevant contexts, such as the physical, social, cultural,
political, and historical environments through which knowers create and understand knowledge
(Lee, 2012; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yanto & Ramdani, 2023).
Owing to its socially constructed nature, research methods that capture the lived
experiences and perspectives of study participants are often utilized under a social constructivist
framework (Patton, 2014). Research methods common to quantitative methods, such as surveys
and experimentation, focus primarily on discerning knowledge through statistical analysis of
numerical data. These methods do not usually permit the subjective understandings and rich
descriptions characteristic of a subjective constructivist interpretative framework. On the
contrary, typical qualitative research methods like interviews, focus groups, and observations
allow researchers to investigate contexts in-depth, allow participants to collaborate around shared
understandings, and allow robust accounts of participants experiences and perspectives (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1998; Patton, 2014).
Philosophical Assumptions
Philosophical assumptions are beliefs that one holds about reality, knowledge, truth, and
values (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Matta, 2021; Patton, 2014). These beliefs are not chosen by a
researcher for a specific research undertaking; on the contrary, philosophical assumptions
describe core beliefs the researcher has that have been developed throughout his or her life,
shaped by his or her experiences, culture, and societal norms (Matta, 2021). These beliefs
influence how a researcher engages in research as well as how data is collected and interpreted.
Therefore, a research author’s philosophical beliefs influence the research. Three core

54
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
philosophical assumptions that influence researchers’ work are ontological, epistemological, and
axiological assumptions.
Ontological Assumption
This researcher is approaching this research from an ontological assumption that is
informed by social constructivism. This researcher believes that multiple realities exist and that
there is not one singular truth, but rather that truth is relative to each person. Regarding this
specific study, this researcher believes that the experiences and perspectives of instructional
leadership by the instructional coach participants in this study is their reality and their truth, but
other instructional coaches in different settings may have different truths about their experiences
and perspectives of instructional leadership. This researcher believes that all these truths are
equally real, relative to their respective believers.
Epistemological Assumption
Like other qualitative researchers, this researcher has subjective orientations towards
knowledge and how one comes to know what one knows. By and large, this researcher believes
that rather than knowledge being discreet facts to be discovered, knowledge is based upon how
people experience and perceive the world. Knowledge is created by the knower as he or she
interacts with the environment and others. Moreover, this researcher believes that knowledge is a
social construct. Knowers not only create knowledge but also create ways of knowing as well as
evidence of knowing. What may count as knowledge in one context may not be viewed the same
way in a different context.
Axiological Assumption
In a qualitative study, it is important for the reader to know the research author’s values
concerning the research. It is equally important for the researcher to be cognizant of his or her

55
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
positionality and bracket values and biases while gathering data, analyzing data, and interpreting
results (Patton, 2014). This qualitative study will examine how instructional coaches experience
and perceive their instructional leadership. This researcher has worked as an instructional coach
since 2015. This researcher firmly believes that instructional coaches have the knowledge and
skillset to be instructional leaders in their settings and that instructional coaches should formally
engage in instructional leadership capacities. Additionally, this researcher believes that top-level
school leaders, such as heads of school and principals, must play a leading role in establishing a
vision, defining the culture, implementing changes in a school setting, and supporting the
instructional leadership of others. While top-level leaders do not have to start these initiatives,
this researcher believes that these initiatives cannot substantively take root in a school
community without the intentional engagement from these leaders.
Researcher’s Role
It is important to understand the researcher’s role in qualitative research. Who the
researcher is and how the researcher knows and interacts with participants will support readers in
understanding the study. This researcher is a human instrument of this study. The researcher
created the interview questions, interviewed participants, and interpreted the information gained
from the interviews.
This researcher has existing friendships and has had professional relationships with
several of the participants in this study. This researcher does not have, nor has she ever had, any
supervisory relationship with or authority over any of the participants in this study. She does not
currently work at the same site or in the same school setting as any of the participants.
As an instructional coach in urban, northeastern schools, this researcher is coming into
this research with biases and assumptions that may influence the methodology. To be impartial

56
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
and unbiased, this researcher bracketed her assumptions so that interviews and data analyses
were approached neutrally. During the interviews, this researcher adhered to the interview
protocol and refrained from engaging in social conversation or sharing her experiences with
participants, as this may have influenced their responses. The researcher did not assume that
because she may have had similar experiences to the participants that she knew what they were
going to say; when necessary, the researcher asked follow-up questions to gain insights on
participants’ responses. Lastly, if strong feelings about the data collected arose within me, this
researcher journaled those feelings to not only support bracketing but to also practice reflexivity
after data interpretation.
Procedures
Below are the steps this researcher followed to engage in this study. These steps are
explained with enough depth and clarity that the study can be replicated, if desired.
Permissions
Data collection did not begin until the researcher received approval from the Slippery
Rock University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB approval letter for this study is
included in the appendix of this document. Site permissions for interviews of district personnel
will also be included in the appendix of this document. Study participants gave their permission
to engage in the study by signing informed consent letters; the informed consent letter used for
this study are also included in the appendix of this document.
Recruitment Plan
The sample pool of instructional coaches for this study included approximately125
instructional coaches employed within a major school district in a large, urban city in the
northeast United States. Guest et al. (2006) recommends that qualitative studies use a sample size

57
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
ranging between 10 and 15 participants. This range is recommended because it allows for the
deep insight characteristic of qualitative data. Robust, in-depth analyses and descriptions of
phenomena and experiences are best gained by using a smaller group size, since it affords
gathering detailed information through interviews. A sample size range of 10-15 participants also
allows the researcher to gain enough data that new perspectives, experiences, and themes are
unlikely to happen with the addition of more participants; this type of richness of data is known
as saturation (Guest et al., 2006; Morse, 1995).
A purposive sample via snowball sampling was used for this study. Purposive sampling is
characterized by choosing participants for the study based on their specific relevant experience
and understandings of the research topic (Smith et al., 1995). Instructional coaches perform a
variety of roles in different settings; not all sites that employ instructional coaches expect or
desire for instructional coaches to serve in instructional leadership roles (Hashim, 2020; Miller et
al., 2019; Neumerski, 2012). This study specifically seeks the insights of instructional coaches in
settings wherein they are expected to work in an instructional leadership capacity. Using
professional networks, this researcher contacted an initial group of instructional coaches who fit
the needs of this study. These coaches were then asked to recommend other coaches who met the
study requirements and might be interested in participating, reaching out to these instructional
coaches via email for initial information and an invitation to learn more about the study. This
researcher continued in this manner until the sample size range was reached. A similar method
was used for the teacher participants of the focus groups. This researcher asked the instructional
coaches to suggest teachers with whom they had worked for at least six months and have at least
two years teaching experience that may have been interested in the study. The researcher
contacted those teachers via email for initial information and an invitation to learn more about

58
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
the study.
Data Collection Plan
Data collection in qualitative studies generally involves gathering rich, detailed, nonnumerical information from study participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Busetto et al., 2020;
Patton, 2014; Stolz, 2022). Such information allows the study participants’ perspectives and
experiences to be understood in-depth. This type of information also allows a phenomenological
researcher to explore the “how” and “why” of the phenomenon of study. For this study, in-depth
individual interviews and focus groups were the data collection methods.
Individual Interviews Data Collection Approach
Conducting individual interviews is a common data collection approach in qualitative
research (Atkins & Wallace, 2015; Knott et al., 2022; Patton, 2014). The individual interview
process entails having one-on-one conversations between researcher and study participants,
using open-ended questions that elicit rich information about the research topic (Atkins &
Wallace, 2015; Patton, 2014; Stolz, 2022). Open-ended questions are used in qualitative research
because they allow the researcher to gather detailed information, as opposed to yes/no interview
questions. Additionally, open-ended interview questions help ensure that a researcher does not
lead study participants towards a specific answer (Atkins & Wallace, 2015; Bogdan & Biklen,
1998; Knott et al., 2022). Individual interviews are a preferred data collection method for
qualitative research because they allow the collection of contextualized and nuanced information
from participants. When necessary, participants can be asked to expound on their responses and
give more details, thus allowing a researcher to obtain the comprehensive data typical of
qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Knott et al., 2022; Patton, 2014).
This research made use of semi-structured interview questions. Semi-structured

59
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
interviews can be characterized by a researcher using a preplanned, core set of open-ended
questions to gather information from study participants while also having the flexibility to not
ask the questions in a specific order or phrasing (Smith et al., 1995). Additionally, semistructured interviews permit the researcher to ask follow-up questions that are not preplanned; in
this way, the researcher is able to probe more deeply into relevant responses by participants
(Smith et al., 1995). The interview for this study was conducted via the Zoom video
conferencing platform. Using the Zoom video conferencing platform allowed for ease of
recording and transcribing the interviews, as Zoom offers these features embedded in the use of
the platform.
Central Research Question
What are the instructional leadership experiences of instructional coaches in a large,
urban city?
Sub-Question One
How do instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional leadership?
Sub-Question Two
What factors influence how instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional
leadership?
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
1. Please describe your educational background and career to date. Background information
2. How long have you been an instructional coach? Background information
3. In what content or pedagogical areas as do you provide instructional coaching?
Background information
4. What do you believe are the professional responsibilities of instructional coaches? RQ1

60
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
5. What are your specific professional duties as an instructional coach at your school/site?
RQ1
6. How do you define instructional leadership? RQ1
7. In general, what role, if any, do you believe instructional coaches play in a school’s
instructional leadership? RQ1
8. In what ways do you act as an instructional leader in the site(s) in which you provide
instructional coaching? RQ1
9. In what ways do you impact the instructional practices and programing at your
school/site? RQ1
10. What factors support you acting as an instructional leader? RQ2
11. How do you influence the factors that support your instructional leadership? RQ2
12. What barriers prohibit you acting as an instructional leader? RQ2
13. How do you influence these barriers that prohibit your instructional leadership? RQ2
14. How do you measure your success as an instructional coach? RQ2
15. How would you describe your supervisor’s leadership style? RQ1
16. What professional expectations has your supervisor communicated related to your role as
an instructional coach? RQ1
17. How do you feel your supervisor’s leadership impacts your ability to fulfill your role as
an instructional coach? RQ2
18. How are you evaluated as an instructional coach? RQ2
19. What perceptions exist among the professional staff related to instructional coaches? RQ2
20. What else would you like to add to our discussion of your experiences and perceptions of
instructional leadership as an instructional coach?

61
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
These questions were included in the interview protocol for this research for very specific
reasons. Questions 1-3 serve as grand tour questions that allowed the researcher and study
participants feel comfortable with each other. The interactions with these questions can facilitate
deeper, more valuable responses later in the interview protocol. Questions 4-14 were intended to
allow participants to reflect on their role as an instructional coach as well as their experiences
with instructional leadership. Questions 15-19 were intended to gain insight on how instructional
coaches believe school leaders and teachers experience and perceive their instructional
leadership. Through these 19 questions, both the instructional leadership and self-efficacy
theoretical frameworks were explored. Question 20 was a final question to ensure that study
participants had an opportunity to share any relevant information they did not share in the
previous questions. To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the interview protocol, all the
interview questions were reviewed by experts in field and refined as necessary. Additionally, the
interview protocol was administered to a small sample of instructional coaches who were not a
part of this study for the purpose of addressing clarity of questions.
Individual Interview Data Analysis Plan
A thematic analysis was completed to analyze the transcribed data from the individual
interviews. According to Sundler et al. (2019), thematic analysis involves a researcher closely
examining data to discern repeated topics, ideas, and themes in the data. Thematic analysis
allows qualitative researchers to find multiple meanings within individual units of data and use
inductive reasoning to synthesize larger patterns of meaning and experience (Braun & Clarke,
2012). Below are the Braun and Clarke’s five steps of thematic analysis that were used in this
research (2012).

62
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Step 1: Familiarization. During the initial step of thematic analysis, the researcher reads and
rereads interview transcripts to become familiar with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Sundler et
al. (2019) propose that the researcher reads the data with an open-minded stance to draw
meaning from the data as opposed to confirming any preconceived biases that the researcher
enters the data analysis process with. During this familiarization process, the researcher takes
note of initial notices, wonderings, and general thoughts.
Step 2: Coding. This stage involves systematically coding relevant portions of the data (Braun
& Clarke, 2012). This coding involves two different actions. The first is to somehow set aside
the specific words of the transcript that belong with each code, such as highlighting them in a
specific color. The second step is to create a code corresponding with this portion of the data; the
code is a shorthand way to describe the relevance of the data to the study.
Step 3: Generating Categories. During this step, codes will be examined for patterns within the
codes (Sunder et al., 2019). As patterns emerge across codes, these codes are bundled together
into categories. Not all codes will necessarily appear often enough to fall under a category; these
codes will not be considered for the data analysis as they may lack relevance for the study.
Step 4: Identifying Themes. During this stage of thematic analysis, all categories discovered in
the previous step are reviewed to ensure that they are representative of the interview transcription
data. Relevancy specifically entails examining the usefulness and accuracy of the data. Then,
categories were collapsed into themes can be collapsed, combined, created, and discarded to
support a thorough and relevant analysis (Sunder et al., 2019).
Step 5: Defining and Naming Themes. During this step, themes from the data are refined,
collapsed, and/or combined to produce the final themes. Definitions of the exact meaning of each
theme are created and a concise, straightforward yet descriptive name is given to each theme.

63
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Focus Groups Data Collection Approach
Conducting focus groups is another data collection approach commonly used in
qualitative research (Busetto et al., 2020; Patton, 2014; Stewart, 1990; Williams & Katz, 2001).
The focus group process entails a researcher leading a small group of participants through an
open discussion guided by questions to yield deep insights on the research topic (Patton, 2014;
Stewart, 1990; Williams & Katz, 2001). A homogeneous group of participants unknown to each
other comprise the focus group. Homogeneity levels the playing field and reduces inhibitions
among the group (Stewart, 1990). Although focus group discussions are open and free flowing,
they are structured around a set of carefully predetermined questions (Williams & Katz, 2001).
Ideally, participant comments will stimulate and influence the thinking and sharing of others,
with some participants changing their thoughts and opinions because of their interactions with
other participants during the focus group session (Stewart, 1990).
This research made use of focus groups to collect data. The participants in the focus
groups consisted of teachers who have professional coaching relationships with the instructional
coaches interviewed for this study. Focus groups participants represented various grade levels
and subject areas. Two focus groups were conducted via Zoom with 7-8 participants in each
group. These groups were homogeneous due to the commonality of their partnership with an
instructional coach; individual experiences and reflections, however, were unique and personal
to each participant. The data collected was analyzed to uncover themes related to instructional
leadership, leadership styles, instructional coaches’ roles in schools, and perceptions of
instructional coaches as instructional leaders
Focus-Group Interview Questions for Teachers

64
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
1. Please describe your educational background and career through your current position.
Background information
2. How long have you worked with the instructional coach at your school? Background
information
3. How does the instructional coach at your school professionally support you? Background
information
4. What do you believe are the general professional responsibilities of the instructional
coach? RQ1
5. What professional expectations has your principal/school leadership communicated
related to your instructional coach’s professional duties? RQ2
6. How do you define instructional leadership? RQ1
7. Do you consider your instructional coach to be an instructional leader at your school?
RQ2
8. How successful do you consider your instructional coach? RQ2
9. What factors influence your instructional coach’s success? RQ2
10. What perceptions exist among the professional staff related to instructional coaches? RQ2
11. What else would you like to add to our discussion of your experiences and perceptions of
instructional leadership as an instructional coach?

65
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Focus-Group Interview Data Analysis Plan for Teachers
A thematic analysis was completed to analyze the data from each focus group session. To
begin this thematic analysis, all the discussion from the focus group interviews was transcribed.
After the researcher read the focus group transcripts and became intimately familiar with it, the
researcher coded portions of the transcript that provided insights relevant to the research
questions. Next, these codes were reviewed for patterns and subsequently grouped together
according to the themes they reveal. Finally, all themes discovered in the previous step were
reviewed to ensure that they are representative of the focus group transcription data.
Representativeness specifically entails examining the usefulness and accuracy of the data.
Data Synthesis
Data for this research came from individual semi-structured interviews and focus group
interviews. Although this research made use of two data collection approaches, the data from
each approach jointly created the entire dataset for this study. As such, the data collected from
each approach did not begin to be analyzed until all data from both approaches had finished
being collected. Doing so allowed data from each approach to be synthesized as one cohesive
data set from which themes that offer answers to the research question were discerned. This data
set underwent the steps of the thematic analysis as outlined above in each approach. Because
Zoom was used for both the individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups, Zoom
transcription software was used to transcribe the data. After all transcripts were coded and
themes emerged, themes were collapsed, combined, created, and discarded to support a thorough
and relevant analysis as needed (Sunder et al., 2019).

66
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Trustworthiness
Trustworthy research studies should measure what the researcher is attempting to
measure, be consistent in their ability to produce the same results, and be as uninfluenced from
personal interests, values, and biases as possible (Stahl & King, 2020). In qualitative research
studies, measures of research trustworthiness include credibility, transferability, dependability,
and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The information that follows explains how the
researcher attempted to achieve trustworthiness in this study.
Credibility
The trustworthiness element that measures confidence in the truth of the study’s findings
is credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To imbue the study with credibility, this researcher
engaged in peer debriefing. Peer debriefing is “a process of exposing oneself to a disinterested
peer in a manner paralleling an analytical session and for the purpose of exploring aspects of the
inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind” (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p. 308). Debriefing the research methods, data analysis, and findings with a peer aided in
the recognition of biases and assumptions that may have been influencing the study. The peer
debriefer also supported in uncovering alternate themes and findings from the data that the lone
researcher may not have otherwise discerned.
Transferability
Research shows a degree of trustworthiness when the findings of the research can be
applied to other contexts that were not included in the study (Drisko, 2024; Stahl & King, 2020).
This element of trustworthiness is known as transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Although
transferability cannot be guaranteed from context to context, a researcher can set the foundation
for transferability to be achieved. For this study, transferability was attempted through the use of

67
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
thick description (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through thick description, a researcher gives a robust
description of the research context. This includes the setting in which the research is taking
place, the subjects who participate in the study, and any other relevant background information
for the study. With such detailed information, readers will be able to determine whether the
research findings are transferable to other contexts.
Dependability
Another aspect of trustworthiness in research is dependability. Dependability establishes
that research findings are consistent and repeatable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To achieve
dependability in this study, this researcher conducted an inquiry audit. This inquiry audit
includes having members of the dissertation committee examine the data collection and data
analysis processes, as well as the findings of the research. This inquiry audit helped ensure that
findings were accurate and supported by the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Confirmability
Confirmability is the final aspect of trustworthiness, and it describes confidence in
research findings being rooted in the participants words and experiences and not the researcher’s
bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This research employed an audit trail as well as reflexivity to
assure confirmability in this study. An audit trail involves the researcher keeping record of and
openly describing the data collection process, the data analysis process, and interpretation of the
data, including explaining rationale behind thematic data coding choices (Malterud, 2001).
Reflexivity involves the researcher actively and systematically reflecting on how their biases and
background may have influenced the study. This researcher employed a reflection journal to
support reflexivity and enhance the study’s confirmability.

68
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Ethical Considerations
To ensure the use of responsible, ethical practices, this researcher adhered to the rules and
regulations of Slippery Rock University’s Institutional Review Board. This included successfully
completing a Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Human Subjects Research on Social
and Behavioral Research course. This course explores ethical research practices, federal research
regulations, informed consent, participant privacy, and confidentiality.
All efforts were made to ensure that study participants were fully apprised about the
study and the nature of their participation. Prior to engaging in the study, all participants in this
study were provided with an informational letter to explain the study, including the use of the
study and possible risks of participation. The researcher also explained to participants that their
participation in the study was purely voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the
study at any time, for any reason. Participants had explained to them that their confidentiality
would be maintained by securely storing recordings of interviews and data analyses; anonymity
would be kept by not using names or other uniquely identifying information in the study.
Participants were be afforded the opportunity to ask questions, share concerns, and gather more
information about the study from the researcher via email, telephone, Zoom, or in-person. After
each participant received all pertinent information about the study and had an opportunity to
address their concerns, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained.
Summary
This chapter outlined the research methods that were used in this study. A hermeneutic
phenomenological research design through a social constructivist framework was used to
investigate how instructional coaches perceive and enact their instructional leadership as well as
the factors that influence how instructional coaches perceive and enact their instructional

69
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
leadership. Purposive, snowball sampling was used to recruit study participants. Instructional
coach participants then engaged in individual interviews on the research topics; teacher
participants engaged in focus groups on the research topics. Interviews and focus group sessions
were transcribed, and thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data.

70
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Overview
This phenomenological study is designed to understand the experiences and perceptions
of instructional leadership for instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district in the
northeastern United States. As a qualitative method, phenomenological research designs afford
the researcher opportunities to deeply understand the “why” and “how” behind a phenomenon
(Eddies-Hirsch, 2015). More specifically, phenomenological studies examine how people
interpret their lived experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Busetto et al., 2020; Patton, 2014;
Stolz, 2022). Participants for this specific research were instructional coaches and their teachers,
selected for their years of experience and familiarity with instructional leadership and
instructional coaching.
Because the essence of phenomenological research is a deep understanding of a
phenomenon, this chapter includes robust descriptions of the site and participant groups of this
study. Afterwards, the findings from the research are detailed. Themes from the data analysis are
identified and explained in detail. Once all themes have been presented, a synthesis of the
findings is discussed. Finally, the central research questions and sub-research questions are
answered plainly.
Setting and Participants
Setting
The site for this research was an urban school district in a major city in the northeastern
part of the United States. This district is a large one, serving approximately 200,000 students and
employing approximately 20,000 staff members in approximately 300 schools. This district
boasts high cultural and linguistic diversity, with over 50 languages being spoken by district

71
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
students. Although the city that hosts this district is socioeconomically varied, approximately
70% of the students in this district are eligible to participate in the federal free or reduced-price
meals program. Since the 2020-2021 school year, this district has hired between 600-800
teachers annually. Each teacher in their first year of employment with this district is partnered
with at least one of the district’s approximately 125 instructional coaches. Collaboration with an
instructional coach beyond this first year of employment is based on formal evaluations,
teachers’ desires for continued collaboration, and school leaders’ discretion.
While this district’s instructional coaching program has been established for several
decades, recent changes within the last decade have increased the number of instructional
coaches in the district. Prior to the 2019-2020 school year, the district’s coaches were only for
new and poorly evaluated teachers; to support other teachers, the district contracted with an
outside organization to supply coaches. Starting in the 2019-2020 year, this district began a small
department of instructional coaches to support teachers in specific school buildings; these
teachers are either self-selected or selected by school leadership for coaching. Each year since,
the number of these instructional coaches that support specific school buildings has rapidly
increased, now accounting for over half of all coaches in the instructional coaching department.
Participants
Due to this research’s phenomenological design, participants for this study were
strategically selected to provide a variety of experiences and perspectives on instructional
coaches and instructional leadership. Participants for this study can be grouped into two distinct
categories: instructional coaches and teachers.
Instructional Coaches

72
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
A purposive sample of ten instructional coaches participated in this research. All ten of
the instructional coaches are employed by and support teachers in the same large, urban school
district in a major northeast city of the United States. These coaches, while meeting minimum
prerequisites of at least five years of teaching experience and two years of instructional coaching
experience, came to the study with a variety of experiences and contexts. The diversity in this
group of participants allowed for a full and complex picture to be illustrated for this study. The
table below details pertinent demographic information about the instructional coach participants
in this study.
Table 1
Instructional Coach Participants
Participant Years of Years of Content Area

Teaching Coaching Coached

Grade Levels

Number of

Coached

Current Schools
Serviced as Coach

A

5

2

ELA

K-8

1

B

7

5

ELA

K-12

5

C

20

8

ELA

K-8

1

D

13

3

Math

K-5

1

E

5

5

All

K-12

2

F

8

4

ELA

K-8

1

G

10

2

Math, ELA

K-5

1

H

12

9

All

K-12

4

I

8

7

ELA

K-5

1

73
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
J

11

5

All

K-12

5

Teachers
Fifteen teachers were included as participants in this study. All the teacher participants
were suggested by the instructional coaches who participated in the study as teachers who either
were currently being coached or had previously been coached by them. In this school district, all
teachers who are new to the district receive coaching for their first year. After this first year, a
teacher’s continued collaboration with an instructional coach is dependent upon the teacher’ s
formal evaluation score, school leader’s discretion, and/or the teacher’s expressed desire to
collaborate with a coach. Each of the teachers who participated in this study have met the basic
requirements of having at least two years of teaching experience and having collaborated with
their instructional coach for at least six months after the mandatory first year of coaching. These
teachers have a variety of experiences that inform their perspectives. Below is a table detailing
the demographic information for these teachers:
Table 2
Teacher Participants
Participant Years of
Teaching

Length of Time with

Content Areas Taught Grade Level Taught

Coach (after
the initial 1st year of coaching)

A

6

2 years

ELA

7

B

13

6 months

ELA, Social Studies

1

C

2

1 year

Math, Science

4

D

2

1 year

ELA

2

74
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
E

9

3 years

Math

8

F

4

4 years

Art

K-8

G

3

2 years

ELA

3

H

2

8 months

ELA, Math, Social

K

Studies, Science
I

5

3 years

Math

2

J

6

1 year

ELA

6

K

4

3 years

ELA

4

L

8

2 years

ELA, Math, Social

K

Studies, Science
M

2

1 year

Math

10

N

3

2 years

Music

9-12

O

3

1 year

Math

3

Results
As a phenomenological study designed to understand the essence of how instructional
coaches perceive and experience instructional leadership, data collection consisted of semistructured interviews with instructional coach participants. These interviews were conducted
individually via Zoom, and Zoom software was used to record and transcribe the interviews.
Each instructional coach was asked 20 prepared questions, with the researcher asking follow-up
and clarifying questions as necessary. At the conclusion of the researcher-prepared questions,
instructional coaches were given the opportunity to share any other relevant experiences,

75
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
perceptions, and understandings of instructional coaches and instructional leadership that had not
yet been uncovered during the interview. Interviews with instructional coaches lasted between
45-60 minutes each.
The second data collection method used for this study was teacher focus groups. As with
the semi-structured interviews, the Zoom platform was used to conduct, record, and transcribe
the focus groups. Two teacher focus groups were conducted: one consisting of seven teachers
and the other consisting of eight teachers. Eleven prepared questions were asked to teachers in
each of these focus groups, with the researcher asking follow-up and clarifying questions as
necessary. At the conclusion of the researcher-prepared questions, focus group participants were
given the opportunity to share any other relevant perceptions and understandings of instructional
coaches and instructional leadership that had not yet been addressed in the focus groups. Both
focus group sessions lasted for approximately 60 minutes.
Phenomenological research is intended to identify the common experiences of
participants to demonstrate what the phenomenon is at its essence (Patton, 2014). Participant
experiences from a variety of contexts should be closely analyzed for recurrent themes that can
be used to describe the phenomenon (Atkins & Wallace, 2015). Consequently, data collected
from both methods of this research were analyzed together as one collective dataset after the
conclusion of all interviews and focus groups.
This combined dataset underwent a systematic, thematic analysis process to inductively
move from individual raw qualitative data to the identification of three essential themes
capturing study participants’ shared lived experiences. The analytic progression is described
below, unfolding through four iterative phases: familiarization, coding, categories, and themes:

76
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Familiarization: The first phase of this process began with raw data, consisting of 527 pages of
verbatim transcripts from ten semi-structured instructional coach interviews and two teacher
focus groups. Consistent with phenomenological principles, these transcripts were treated as the
foundational sources of meaning and were read multiple times in their entirety to deeply
understand experiences before any formal coding occurred. During this phase, the researcher
engaged in bracketing by documenting assumptions to minimize preconceived interpretations of
participants’ accounts.
Coding: Following the familiarization phase, transcripts were analyzed line by line to
identify meaning units—segments of text that conveyed a discrete idea relevant to the
instructional coaches’ experiences of instructional leadership. These meaning units were
grounded in participants’ voices and labeled with initial in vivo codes using participants’ own
language when possible. During this phase, codes were descriptive rather than interpretive and
remained close to the verbatim data (such as “unclear expectations” and “success with earning
teachers’ trust”). Approximately 1000 codes were generated at this point.
Categories: After the coding phase, related codes were grouped into broader categories that
reflected recurring patterns across participants’ experiences. Categories functioned to organize
codes that reflected similar conditions, actions, or meanings without yet interpreting them. For
example, multiple codes related to ambiguity, lack of communication, and unclear expectations
were clustered into a category such as “role ambiguity”. Categories were continually compared
across cases using a constant comparative approach to ensure they captured shared aspects of the
phenomenon rather than isolated experiences. Fifteen categories were unfolded during this
phase.

77
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Themes: During the final phase, categories were then synthesized into interpretive themes to
capture the essential structures of the participants’ shared lived experiences. These themes were
constantly compared across transcripts to ensure that they were present in multiple participants,
have substantive data to support it, and contributed to research phenomenon in a meaningful
way. Themes were refined, combined, and collapsed as needed. Three final themes were
discerned from the data: Role Ambiguity and Fractured Instructional Leadership, Relational
Trust as an Enabler, and Perceived Agency and Coaching Self-Efficacy.
Distinguishing “Instructional Coaches’ Instructional Leadership” and “Instructional
Coaches as Instructional Leaders”
The ensuing discussion of this study’s themes, their interpretations, and various
implications will include two similar yet distinct sets of verbiage: “instructional coaches’
instructional leadership” and “instructional coaches as instructional leaders.” While these terms
are tightly associated with each other, they are not synonymous. “Instructional coaches’
instructional leadership” refers to the practices that instructional coaches perform to have impact
on teaching and learning in their contexts. Conceptually, this phrase orients towards actions and
processes that instructional coaches use to influence others. The concept of “instructional
coaches’ instructional leadership” is aligned with Spillane’s (2005) distributed leadership theory,
which focuses on leadership emerging through interactions with others rather than through
position. Examples of “instructional coaches’ instructional leadership” include persistent
engagement in coaching cycles despite scheduling challenges, building relational trust with
teacher colleagues to influence instruction, and dialogue with educational stakeholders around
instructional responses to students' data.

78
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
On the contrary, “instructional coaches as instructional leaders” represents the actual and
perceived positions that instructional coaches occupy within the instructional leadership
structures at their schools. This concept is grounded not in instructional coaches’ practice but
rather in their role identity and the legitimacy of their role. Discussions of “instructional coaches
as instructional leaders” is most connected to notions of role clarity/ambiguity, authority,
membership in instructional leadership structures, and perceptions -including both selfperceptions and perceptions of others- of leadership identity. Examples of “instructional coaches
as instructional leaders” includes membership in schools’ formal instructional leadership teams,
ability to initiate schoolwide instructional reform initiatives, and leadership or facilitation of
professional learning structures in schools.
Role Ambiguity and Fractured Instructional Leadership
One theme that arose from the data is participants trying to come to a clear understanding
of instructional coaches' roles and professional responsibilities. Within the various settings in
which the participants worked, instructional coaches had different professional expectations.
Without centralized communication about who the instructional coaches are, why they were
chosen to support in specific schools and with specific teachers, and what that support would
look like, participants used their individual experiences to define instructional coaches’ roles and
responsibilities. Common trends emerged within these individual definitions.
Lack of Administrative Communication About Instructional Coaches Roles and Expectations
Consistent with the findings of Miller et al. (2019) and Woodward and Thomas (2021),
all the participants in this research shared that their school administrators did not share any
information with staff members about instructional coaches’ roles in the school or their
responsibilities. Teacher K shared,

79
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
I don't remember any of my administration really providing me with the
expectations I should have of the instructional coach. But [the coach] herself…
does do that at the beginning of the year, at least with me, she has. Every year,
she's like, “This is what I intend to do, but what are your expectations, and what,
you know, how can I do it?”
Teacher D added, “I don't know if our administration really knows how much work and
what we do with our instructional coach and how we take what we do with her and bring it back
into our classroom.” Summarizing the lack of communication from school leaders to staff about
instructional coaching, Teacher M plainly shared, “I don’t think [school administrators] go over
the coaches’ duties anymore.”
Many of the instructional coach participants corroborated this experience. Coach B’s
insight exemplified nonexistent messaging to teachers about instructional coaches' expectations,
stating,
Older teachers that have already had a coach know what to expect, but that’s
because they already had a coach. The new teachers, principals don’t tell them
anything about what we do. What it’s really like to work with us.
In a similar fashion, Coach G explained,
Principals barely have time to meet with us and tell us who we are supposed to be
coaching. No, they do not tell us what they expect from us, and they do not tell
teachers what to expect from us. We have to go in and explain it to the teachers
themselves in our first coaching meeting.

80
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Some participants reported that administrators explained what responsibilities teachers
had to instructional coaches but did not clearly explain the responsibilities instructional coaches
had to teachers, school administrators, or the school as a whole. Coach F observed,
You know, I don’t think [the principal] really tells teachers what my duties are.
When I started, I didn’t think he really understood what my duties were. I was his
first coach. Now I do know that he tells the teachers that they have to meet with
me at least once a week, that they have to work on their coaching goal with me.
Coach A reflected, “I wasn’t introduced or anything. She just kind of made a blanket
statement, you know, like, ‘Some of you will be coached. I’ll be looking for progress on
coaching goals during walkthroughs.’ Stuff like that.” Teacher participants voiced this same
one-sided messaging. Teacher J lamented, “The only thing my principal told me about the coach
is that I had to meet with her at least once a week during prep and if I didn’t, I would get written
up.” In alignment with all other shared sentiments, Teacher C stated,
I have had no communication about what the coach is supposed to do. I’ve been
told what I am supposed to do with the coach, after I work with the coach, or as a
result of the coach. But the principal hasn’t told me anything about the coach’s
responsibilities.
Finally, Coach E’s assertions plainly explain how teachers have their coaching
responsibilities explained to them without having instructional coaches’ responsibilities
explained,
Only the teachers I work with really know what my duties are, and that’s because
I work with them. Other than that, no one knows what I do. They know that if
they are assigned to work with me and they don’t, the principal tells them they

81
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
will write them up. They know that they have to have a certain amount of
progress towards their goal as a part of their evaluation; the principals tell them
that too. But other than that, if a teacher doesn’t work with me, they have no idea
what I do.
In general, participants attributed this lack of administrative communication to two core
reasons: they believed that either school administrators themselves did not clearly understand
instructional coaches’ roles or that school administrators were deliberately vague about
instructional coaches’ roles in order to use instructional coaches in more ways than would be
generally expected of instructional coaches. These sentiments appear to confirm the research of
Kane and Rosenquist (2019), which details how instructional coaches’ time use in non-coaching
activities had serious implications for how they were received as leaders. For instance, Teacher
D noted,
I think, in a sense… [my instructional coach’s] exact duties were kind of left
vague on purpose by admin, because they do call her in to fill many roles that you
would not normally expect a literacy coach to fill. She runs the PSSAs. Which…
the literacy and the math piece and the science PSSAs, which would not normally,
I don't think, I don't know for certain, but I don't… when I think of literacy coach,
that's not the first thing that pops into my mind as a responsibility. So, I sort of do
feel like… the admin at our school have left that clarification of her position and
expectations intentionally vague.
Coach E expressed similar thoughts, noting,
To my knowledge, they [school leaders] don’t tell teachers what we do. And they
try to act like that’s because they don’t really know what we do, but they know

82
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
what we do because they ask us to do everything. I think the school leaders don’t
communicate expectations about us because if they did, the minute they asked us
to do something that wasn’t our actual job, everyone would know that we aren’t
supposed to do it.
Instructional Coaches Need High Content Knowledge
Without clear communication from school leaders about instructional coaches’ core
responsibilities, participants came to their own understanding about the core responsibilities of
coaches. The more salient of these surmised professional duties is that instructional coaches are
to be the content knowledge leaders in a school building. Coach G declared, “[we instructional
coaches] have to educate ourselves in whatever area we are supporting,” later adding, “I think
instructional coaches know the whole trajectory...their content knowledge is invaluable, like,
truly...because of their understanding of the whole picture of their content area.” Coach D
claimed,
Coaches are instructional leaders because we lead the school with the most
knowledge. We know the curriculum and know our subject better than just about
anyone. It’s a part of our job to. I mean, we build in time in our day or our
week to study this stuff to make sure we are the leaders.
Having a deep understanding of content knowledge appeared to consistently be a defining
duty and expectation of instructional coaches, similar to the expectations laid out by Knight
(2021). This content knowledge was a prerequisite of the job not only to be able to grow
teachers’ practice but also to simply facilitate building relationships with teachers. Teacher O
posed, “Honestly, I don’t think veteran teachers need coaches. Like, if you’ve made it this far,
why do you need a coach now? But honestly, things are always changing, and someone has to

83
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
help the vets learn new things.” Explicitly demonstrating how high content knowledge helped
instructional coaches partner with experienced teachers, Teacher B quipped, “I’ll tell you what,
though! When I started working with the coach, after teaching for 13 years, that coach sure as
hell better know way more than I do if I’m going to respect them!” Likewise, Coach A shared,
At first a lot of teachers didn’t want to work with me, because they knew I was
fresh out of the classroom and didn’t have that many years actually in the
classroom. But once they see that I really, really know my stuff, they come
around and ask for help.
This sentiment was even true with instructional coaches who did not specialize in a
specific content area. Coach H, an general instructional coach who supports teachers in all
subject areas, explained,
To drive the kind of growth and development we want to see in teachers, we have
to deeply know whatever content area we are coaching in. I think that’s one of the
core duties of my job. Maybe I don’t know the most of any one subject, but I
know the most about all of the subjects put together.
Teacher N reflected,
I feel like my coach knows everything. I know she works with me in music, and
like, who would have thought someone would be a music coach, right? But she
also supports teachers in academic areas too. And she is able to tell us specific
things about whatever subject we teach. I don’t know, I feel like one of their main
professional responsibilities is to know more than everyone, if I can say that.
Compounding that reflection, Coach E claimed,

84
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
My experience has been that principals know a little bit about reading, a little bit
about math, but that’s just about it. It’s my job to know all the ins and outs, to
know what’s new in each field...so I can support the teachers but also so I can
advise the principals, if they can meet with me.
Instructional coach participants owned this responsibility of being content knowledge
leaders, expressing their belief that one of their most sacred professional duties is to stay abreast
of current pedagogical and content area research. When speaking about the professional
responsibilities of coaches, Instructional Coach F exclaimed,
One of the reasons I enjoy being a coach is because it is a part of my job to be a
part of literacy organizations, go to professional development sessions, read the
research...stay in the know. Like, the literacy world is making some huge shifts
right now, and as a coach, I’m supposed to know what these shifts are and how to
break them down to my teachers.
Similarly, Coach B explained,
We have to do what we have to do to make sure that we actually are experts.
Principals and teachers are looking to us to know what’s the right thing to do,
what’s new out there, what the best practice is. We have to dedicate regular time
in our schedule to make sure we know that stuff. To stay educated.
Illustrating the seriousness of this duty, Coach G contended,
It [an instructional coach’s relationship with a teacher] really doesn’t work well if
[the teacher] knows more than me, you know. I’m supposed to be the one that
knows it all and has all the answers. So, if I have to stay up all night looking
something up and figuring something out, you best believe I’m doing it! As a

85
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
matter of fact, I just enrolled in an online Science of Reading course to help my
K-2 teachers with [the new foundational skills curriculum].
Instructional Coaches Not Perceived as Instructional Leaders
Research participants overwhelmingly agreed that, although instructional coaches should
be instructional leaders in their building, they were not perceived as instructional leaders. For
many participants, a core tenet of being an instructional leader is autonomy. Coach F
contended,
How do I define instructional leadership? A person who knows instruction and is
able to lead the staff, set things up, make plans and execute them. On their own.
Like, consulting other people of course, but instructional leaders have the final
say at the end.
Highlighting the importance of independent decision-making ability, Coach A defines
instructional leadership as, “The content knowledge to know current best instructional practices
plus the authority to make decisions for schools and teachers that are in the best interest of
students.” Teacher I defined instructional leadership as,
The ability to lead the instructional life of a school...by making and giving the
directives, seeing them through, making sure that people follow them.
Instructionally being the top on in charge; being the one to make the decisions
and being responsible for the results of those decisions.
While autonomy was believed to be a defining characteristic of instructional leadership,
instructional coach participants commonly asserted feeling little autonomy over their role and an
inability to independently make key decisions in their work. “My job is not to make the
decisions,” Coach I declared, “my job is to support the decisions of the school leaders and carry

86
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
out their vision.” Coach F observed, “I think there is a difference between what my role is
supposed to be, I mean what instructional coaching in general is, and what I actually do. I don’t
have a say in that; that is out of my control and above my pay grade!” Reflecting deeply on
instructional coaches and their instructional leadership, Coach J remarked,
Most of the instructional coaches I know, we have the deep pedagogical and
content knowledge to be instructional leaders. Whereas most principals have a
strong disciplinary background, or were in the classroom years ago, coaches keep
their eyes and ears and heads, their heads, in the instruction and instructional
research. Unfortunately, though, instructional coaches don’t have the power
to initiate initiatives for schools, decide how curricula are implemented, evaluate
teachers. We can’t even tell a teacher ‘You need to do such-and-such.’ We have
to phrase everything to a teacher as a suggestion, because as a coach we are not
supposed to dictate what teachers do. We don’t have that power...how can we be
instructional leaders without the authority that comes with leadership?
Similarly, teacher participants noted that instructional coaches were not instructional
leaders because they could not actively lead large groups of their staff. Teacher A claimed, “My
coach is not an instructional leader. She can barely get the teachers she works with to make
changes, so I know she couldn’t lead the whole team!” Extending that sentiment, Teacher
C contended,
[My instructional coach] definitely should be an instructional leader in my school.
She knows everything. Like, she knows the stuff and knows what we should do.
But she doesn’t have the power to make anything happen. She should be the

87
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
leader, but without that power, she’s not. She just has to hope that the principal
and [assistant principal] take her advice.
Teacher M’s words shed more light on how instructional leadership is perceived and why
instructional coaches are not believed to be instructional leaders:
To be an instructional leader, you have to lead. And sometimes, a lot of times,
leading folks means forcing them to do something they don’t want to do in order
for them to see the good of that thing; bringing the horse to the well and making
him drink so he can see that the water tastes good, you know, that sort of thing.
Coaches can’t force us to do anything. That’s not their role. So, yeah, they got the
instruction part down, but instructional leader? No, they can’t lead us to do
anything.
In alignment with instructional coaching studies such as Miller et al. (2019) and Kho et
al. (2019), the roles and responsibilities of instructional coaches were vague to participants in
this research. Instructional coaches we not typically perceived as instructional leaders by
participants in this study; although instructional coaches had the high content knowledge for
instructional leadership, both teachers and instructional coaches reported that instructional
coaches do not have the authority required of instructional leaders to make autonomous
decisions. Without this authority, instructional coaches resorted to using relationships as their
chief mechanism for influencing others.
Relational Trust as an Enabler
In a second theme discerned in the dataset, participants revealed that the chief mechanism
through which instructional coaches can impact instructional practices is intentionally building
and maintaining relationships with others. This theme corroborates the findings of researchers

88
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
like Knight (2007) and Woulfin et al. (2023) that highlight the necessity of instructional coaches
building strong relationships with educational stakeholders. Whereas instructional coaches did
not wield the power to make teachers or school leaders change in the traditional sense of the
word, their strong, trusting, honest connections with others afforded them some capacity to
influence others.
Relationships with School Administrators
Many participants found that it was necessary for instructional coaches to deliberately
develop a rapport with school leaders. Instructional coaches realized and respected the necessity
of collaborating with principals in order to effectively coach teachers. According to Coach D, “I
can’t really do anything without the principal’s support. I can try, but it won’t be effective.”
Coach J reflected on the weight of principalship and the steps she takes to build a strong
relationship with principals, noting,
It’s their [school administrators’] schools. It’s their teachers. And at the end of the
day, their names are on the line. So, I have to go through them. Which means I
have to make sure I stop by the office every day, say hi, schedule regular checkins, follow up on plans and emails. Make sure they like me.
In a similar vein, Coach B claimed,
If [principals] don’t like you, you can just forget it. It’ll make your job
impossible. So yes, I for sure stroke egos, put on my biggest smile, and shower
the principal and the [assistant principals] with compliments. Because it means
that they’ll be more likely to listen to me when I have an ask or need to present
them with some bad data, when I have a zany plan to address the data.
Teacher G added,

89
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
[The school’s principal and assistant principals] micromanage...They
micromanage teachers, and from what I see they micromanage the coach too. So,
[the instructional coach] has gotten real chummy with them, just to make sure she
[the instructional coach] can do what she needs to do. Do the things that she
thinks are in the teachers’ best interest.
The main method of building relationships with school administrators was scheduling
regular meetings between instructional coaches and school leaders. These meetings were not
only meant to support co-created instructional coaching plans, but more importantly to cultivate
strong interpersonal relationships between coaches and leaders. Through these meticulously
nurtured partnerships, instructional coaches were able to enact some degree of instructional
leadership by influencing school leaders' decision making. Coach A explains,
The new [professional learning community] cycle? That was my idea. Very early
on I could see that my work with [a teacher] wouldn’t really stick unless I got all
of her grade partners on board. But even though I saw that in the beginning, I had
to wait a few months to present the idea to [the principal]. Because, how would I
look, coming into the school and straight away suggesting big changes? Nope. I
would just go to my weekly check-ins week after week, learning how he worked,
who he was, and how he would be most receptive to my idea. Like, let him know
that I didn’t have any ulterior motives or anything.
Foundational to the relationships that instructional coaches built with school
administrators was an empathy for the administrators’ feelings and actively considering the
school leaders’ perspective. Some participants noted taking special care not to offend principals’
leadership, staff, or school in general. Coach L believed,

90
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Principals carry the weight of the school on their shoulders. I just know that that is
a heavy load. So, I have to be careful that they don’t think I am criticizing them or
their work. I am intentionally asset-based, friendly, and try to talk data so that
they know I’m looking at impact, not...baseless critique.
Coach H’s anecdote highlights how her strong sense of empathy helps stave off
principals being offended by her suggestions, sharing,
Whenever I want to do a school-to-school peer observation, I make sure that
me and the principal have a good enough relationship before I ask permission for
a teacher to leave the building to go to another school and look at other teachers.
Because it can be insulting. I mean, a principal can find it very insulting, that I am
asking for the teacher to leave their school to see someone else. Like, as if I am
saying there are no good teachers in their building. If the principal feels insulted,
you can just hang it up; they won’t work with you. So, I do make sure they know
me well enough to know that I’m not trying to slight them or their school.
Relationships with Teachers
Instructional coach and teacher participants alike overwhelmingly named building
trusting relationships with teachers as one of instructional coaches’ core responsibilities. The
purpose of these strong connections is twofold. On the one hand, it is the chief vehicle through
which coaches can enact their day-to-day instructional leadership. “It’s no secret that
[instructional coaches] can’t make teachers do anything,” asserted Coach D. “But the more the
teachers know us and like us and trust us, the more they decide to at least try and do something
different.” Expounding on that theme, Coach A explained,

91
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Being an instructional coach is relational at its core. We are like these little
vagabonds, with no team of our own in a school, floating in and out different
classrooms, asking folks to change what they’ve been doing or look at something
from a different point of view. No amount of data or science or research is going
to convince a teacher to do something different unless they trust you first.
Coach D described how crucial building relationships with teachers is to instructional
coaches’ daily duties, saying, “[Teachers] literally don’t even open the door if they don’t like
you. And according to the union, they don’t have to let you in their room. You need their
permission to just do your job.” Teacher K’s point extended this thought even more, clarifying,
“I don’t personally have a great relationship with my coach, but I know that a lot of teachers do.
If they didn’t, she wouldn’t have a job.”
On the other hand, building trusting relationships with teachers also served as an
important way that instructional coaches were able to build some professional selfefficacy. Without the authority to make decisions or compel teachers to take certain actions,
instructional coaches did not feel much ability to produce desired instructional improvements
through coaching. They did, however, believe they could create the desired relationships with
teachers in order to facilitate coaching, thus helping them to feel some agency in their
work. Coach A contended, “I have to make sure the teachers trust me. It’s one of the only things
I can control in this job.” Similarly, Coach I claimed, “It feels silly to say this, but it feels good to
know that I have some say over how well I am coaching, even if it is only being able to connect
with teachers.”
Throughout the interviews, participants mentioned numerous barriers that hindered
instructional coaches' collaboration with teachers. These barriers included missed prep periods

92
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
and general teacher overwhelm. Instructional coaches demonstrated that, despite the barriers,
being viewed positively by teachers was of the utmost importance to their effectiveness. Coaches
were willing to leverage things within their realm of control to help them be perceived as
collaborators and supports to teachers in spite of the barriers. For instance, Coach D shared,
“I’m not always all business with teachers. Sometimes, if a teacher has had a really bad day, and
I mean in school or out of school, I intentionally choose to scrap the coaching and just have a
venting session for the teacher. Just person to person.” In similar fashion, Coach F explained,
There are so many things that affect my job as a coach, but I can’t control them.
But I do have some control over my relationship with the teachers. So, I do what I
need to do. Be consistent. Show up when I say I will. Always smile, be positive,
look on the bright side. Be flexible. So, you missed your prep and now we can’t
meet? That’s okay, I’ll reschedule. And as a matter of fact, let me cover your class
for a few minutes so you get a bathroom break and can run the copies you needed
to make during your prep. That’s not my job, but I do what I can do to make sure
the teachers know I’m on their side.
Encapsulating the essence of this subtheme, Coach G contended,
I’m pretty new to coaching, and most days I don’t know if I’m doing it well or
not. But if I focus on making sure that teachers feel comfortable working with me,
I know I’m doing something right. And eventually, so long as teachers work with
me, I will be a successful coach.
Strong and supportive relationships with teachers were not only a critical component of
instructional coaches’ duties, but one of the few responsibilities of instructional coaches in
which coaches believed they were able to succeed.

93
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Relationships with Other Instructional Coaches
The data analysis revealed that relationships between instructional coaches was a third
category of relationships used for influence. Instructional coaches connected with each other in
order to influence teachers, school leaders, and district leaders. Coach A explained, “I’m pretty
new to [coaching]. When I started, I paid close attention to who the big names were in the
department, and I made sure to sit by them in PDs, email them with questions, shadow them for
collegial visits.” Describing how coach-to-coach relationships support a coach’s influence,
Coach G offered,
Teaching, I can do with my eyes closed! I was the best of the best in teaching. But
do I feel successful coaching? Working with adults is a different beast and I’m
still learning. I am always meeting up with other coaches to learn, “How did you
decide that?” Or “How did you get your teachers to do XYZ?” Or “How would
you approach blah blah blah?”
Coach C asserted,
There’s power in numbers, you know. I’ve been around long enough to know that
if I simply tell my principal that such-and-such at this school and such-and-such
at that school are making these moves, then my principal is automatically going to
want to make those moves too. So, I connect with all the coaches to stay in the
loop with who’s doing what.
Although it did not seem to be fully understood from an outside perspective, teacher
participants also recognized that coaches intentionally collaborated with other coaches. The
following exchange between teachers during one focus group demonstrates their attempts to
make meaning of instructional coaches’ relationships with each other.

94
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Teacher G: I think one thing everybody thinks about the coaches is, like, what are
they doing all day? Like, they aren’t in classrooms most of the day, so what are
they doing?
Teacher B: Yeah, and like, how do they always have time to be out of the
building? My coach is never in the building!
Teacher G: Me too! Mine too! Always a PD or something. Or going to visit
another coach.
Teacher A: What is with that? Why are they always visiting other coaches? I can’t
visit other teachers the way they visit other coaches. I barely get my own prep so
how can we afford to have them out of the building?
Teacher B: Well, I know when we’ve had other coaches in our building, they are
like following my coach around to learn from her, I guess. See how she does what
she does.
Teacher G: Yeah, I mean, I guess that's fair. If you’re new you have to learn some
kind of way...
Relationships Connections to Grounding Theoretical Frameworks
The relationships that instructional coaches held with teachers, principals, and other
instructional coaches varied in their intended outcomes and thus their overall connected to the
theories grounding this research- Hallinger’s instructional leadership theory (2005) and
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977)- may be obscured. Relationships with teachers were
intended to support instructional coaching impact. Relationships with school leaders were built
with the aim of exercising granted authority in the absence of formal distributed leadership
pathways. Relationships with instructional coach peers were developed to strengthen coaching

95
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
skills. Although the intent of these three types of relationships varied, they all had the same two
functions.
In one sense, instructional coaches’ relationships with others were tightly interwoven
with the theme of the role ambiguity they experienced, functioning as a mechanism for
distributed leadership in the absence of formal structures for instructional leadership. Hallinger
(2005) described three broad dimensions through which instructional leadership is enacted:
defining the school mission, which includes framing and communicating school goals; managing
the instructional program, which includes supervising instruction, giving instructional feedback,
monitoring student data; and developing a positive school climate, which includes promoting
professional development and providing incentives for teaching and learning. Instructional
coaches in this study did not have formally recognized means for achieving these aims. For
instance, instructional coaches were not members of schools’ goal-setting committees, did not
have independent access to student data, were not permitted inside classrooms to observe
instruction without teachers’ permission, and had no formal authority to create instructional
incentives. Due to this role ambiguity, instructional coaches in this study used their relational
trust to compensate for the lack of structured leadership and accomplish acts of instructional
leadership. Citing these same acts, instructional coaches built strong relationships with principals
to give their input around school goals and receive permission to offer incentives; additionally,
they leveraged relationships with teachers to gain access to instruction and student data. Without
prescribed methods for distributed instructional leadership from district or school leaders,
relationships with others operated –with varying degrees of success- as instruments for enacting
instructional leadership.

96
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
In another sense, instructional coaches’ relationships with others also served as
moderators of self-efficacy. Interpreting Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory in an instructional
coaching context, instructional coaches’ sense of self-efficacy is influenced by how they perform
the tasks necessary to improve instruction. These tasks include navigating difficult conversations
with various stakeholders, persisting through instructional coaching challenges like misuse of
instructional coaches’ time or teachers’ lack of protected time for coaching, engaging in
coaching feedback cycles, and broadly supporting instruction at large. High relational credibility
and trust allowed instructional coaches to execute these tasks more fluidly and successfully; low
relational credibility and trust had the opposite effect. As described by participants in this study,
instructional coaches exercised their instructional leadership not through authority but through
influence. This influence was moderated by relational trust. Strong relationships increased
receptivity of instructional leadership and consequently self-efficacy. For instance, coaches’
relational trust with teachers contributed to their high self-efficacy for impacting individual
instruction, as illustrated by their persistent engagement in working with individual teaching
despite numerous obstacles. Conversely, weak relationships were characterized by constraints
and defensiveness, leading to low self-efficacy. Instructional coaches’ cautious relationships with
school leaders and nonexistent relationships with teachers who weren’t coached contributed to
low self-efficacy for impacting wide-range instruction.
Perceived Agency and Coaching Self-Efficacy
The final theme discerned in the dataset was that of instructional coaches’ success and
self-efficacy being experienced and measured in different areas. Factors that are commonly
believed to contribute to people’s professional self-efficacy, such as years of experience in a role,
did not appear to have a significant impact on the self-efficacy of instructional coach participants

97
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
in this study. The biggest factor related to instructional coaches’ self-efficacy was the perceived
locus of control coaches’ felt over various aspects of their role. In those aspects of the job over
which instructional coaches believed they had a strong locus of control, they felt high selfefficacy and were perceived as successful. Conversely, in aspects of instructional coaching over
which coaches believed they had little locus of control, instructional coaches felt low selfefficacy and were perceived as unsuccessful.
Strong Feelings of Success with Building Relationships with Teachers
Coaches felt and were perceived as successful in areas of their job that they had a high
locus of control over. One of these areas was building relationships with teachers. Building
relationships with teachers and establishing trust was seen as a core responsibility of coaches that
lays the foundation for improving instructional practice and student performance. While
reflecting on her success as an instructional coach, Coach J pondered,
How do I measure my success? I think there are different ways to be successful.
Or unsuccessful. You know, different parts of coaching. And I am successful in
some and unsuccessful, or less successful in others. Like connecting with the
teachers I coach, I’m very successful with that.
When asked to explain how she measured her success in connecting with teachers,
Coach J replied,
Their willingness to meet with me. How they contact me when it was planned and
when it’s not planned. And, honestly, the fact that I can make quick adjustments
when I realize that the relationship is headed in the wrong direction.
Not only do these comments demonstrate that instructional coaches viewed “success” as
a woven rope with multiple threads in which one can be successful; they also demonstrate that

98
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
the most success is experienced in the threads that coaches can influence. Elaborating this point
more clearly, Coach G remarked,
I think I am the most successful in making teachers feel comfortable to get
coached...I can make them comfortable. I try to really know them, not as just
teachers but as people. Inside the school and outside of school. Because who they
are and what they go through outside of school affects how they show up at
school and how they work with me.
More strongly connecting relationship building to professional self-efficacy, Coach D
asserted, “I can control my rapport with the teachers. Doing little things, being available
whenever they want to meet, finding the resources they need, being willing to model a lesson in
their class...I am the factor that influences my success.”
Teachers also voiced that their relationships with instructional coaches were a measure
of the coaches’ success. Of her coaches’ success, Teacher M shared,
I would say the first thing to be successful with me, I got to feel comfortable with
you and have some kind of relationship with you. If I don't feel like we've got
good energy together, then I'm less likely to want to work with you or listen to
you. So, I feel like my coach has been successful because I like to work with her.
Teacher C reported, “I will say that I know that she has come in and she has a presence.
In terms of success, I think that she is a very likable person, a very personable person, very
approachable.” When evaluating how successful her instructional coach has been, Teacher J said,
“As far as having a relationship with people so that what they're trying to work with them on
is received well, I do feel that she's successful in that.” Teacher K’s reflection explained how her

99
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
coach was able to actively improve her relationships with teachers, consequently impacting
teacher practice,
What I've found that she does really well is, it seems a little quirky at first, but she
does get to try to get to know us. Personally, like, our learning styles and our
personality styles. We take personality quizzes. And she just sits in our rooms in
the beginning of the year just observing us. No coaching, just observing us as
people. And then I feel like that helps her kind of dictate how she's going to help
us in the ways that we, will be, like, receptive to it, and it will be purposeful.
Participants believed that instructional coaches’ success should, in part, be measured by
the quality of their relationships with the teachers they coach. Coaches reported feeling able to
control the strength of their relationships with teachers, thus having self-efficacy in this domain
and being perceived as successful in building relationships with teachers.
Mixed Feelings of Success with Improved Individual Teacher Practice
Although participants believed that instructional coaches were successful in building
relationships with teachers, participants expressed mixed feelings about instructional coaches’
ability to improve individual teachers’ practice. For example, Coach G explained,
Successful? I think with some teachers I am successful. You go into their
classrooms and it’s like a completely different classroom and a completely
different teacher from when we started. But with other teachers, they are doing
the same or worse. It just depends.
Of the success of two years of instructional coaching on her own practice, Teacher
L reflected,

100
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
I think last year was really helpful with my coach. It was my first year teaching
kindergarten, and coming from fifth grade, I needed a lot of help just
understanding how to work with little people. But I’m kind of wondering why I
still need to be coached this year. It doesn’t have the same impact that it did last
year. I don’t need it now.
Teacher B noted general minimal success, stating, “But when it comes to our overall
school-wide data, specifically in regard to, like, PSSAs, teachers’ scores have not really
improved much. Even the ones [the instructional coach] supports. A little improvement but not
much considering they are coached.”
Some participants shared that the amount of time instructional coaches spend with
teachers felt directly related to how they are able to make an impact on individual teachers’
practice. For instance, Coach F asserted, “I can’t help them if I barely get to work with them.
Can’t move the needle if I can’t see them.” Instructional coaches expressed limited control over
how much time they are able to spend with teachers, due to a variety of reasons such as how
often coaches are scheduled to be in schools, the amount of teachers on a coaching caseload,
whether or not teachers are required to meet with coaches, teachers missing time with coaches
due to teachers acting as substitutes for other teachers during their prep block, and coaches being
pulled to do non-coaching duties during coaching times. Coach H shared,
I’m in four different schools. So, I may only be in a certain school just one day a
week. I can only meet with the teachers one day a week; I can’t really see things
through. I just try to set things up to make them want to do what we work on
together, but in the end it’s really up to them.
Similarly, Coach B claimed,

101
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Between me going to different schools, meeting with different admin, doing all
my paperwork, and being called into surprise meetings, I can usually only see one
lesson and have one coaching session with a teacher each week. If that teacher
loses their prep and I can’t meet with them, I have to wait until the next week. It’s
hard to get traction like this, but this is the job. I can’t change it.
Teacher participants expressed similar views on the amount of time teachers collaborate
with coaches and coaches’ limited ability to influence that time. Teacher C reflected,
I do try to meet with my coach whenever we are scheduled to, but sometimes I
lose my prep because I have to cover a class. And sometimes, honestly, I just
can’t do it. I have other things to do and I cancel the coaching meeting. Like if
grades are due or I need to call parents, sorry coach, got to cancel!
Some teachers desired more time with their coaches to strengthen their practice but
realized that neither instructional coach nor teacher could change the amount of time they
collaborated. Teacher D exclaimed,
I wish I could work with my coach more. Like, the things that we work on
together, I know that I am getting better with those things. But I also know that I
am one of seventeen teachers, I think, that she coaches. The only way to get more
time with her is for her to have less teachers. That’s not up to me or her.
Low Feelings of Success with Impacting Instructional Practice at a Large Scale
Another aspect of instructional coaching that participants believed should be included in
evaluations of success is instructional coaches’ ability to impact instructional practices at a broad
level. Participants expressed a belief that, to make truly sustained improvements in teachers’
individual practice, improvement efforts would need to be targeted beyond individual teachers.

102
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Efforts to have entire grade-levels or grade bands (at the elementary school levels) or content
area departments (at the middle school and high school levels) were deemed necessary to sustain
growth. Coach A contended that,
In order to really proliferate change with a teacher, real change, I would have to
work with the whole grade-level. Because grade-partners work together more than
the coach ever could, so they have the potential to influence each other more than
I could or anyone else.
Teacher E reported,
I think things would be better if the coach worked with the department chair. The
coach can make suggestions, but the department chair is looked at as kind of a
leader. We listen to the department chair. So, if [the coach] wanted to have a
bigger impact, she should have the department chair working with her.
Teacher O wished that her coach could,
...come and lead our PLC meetings with the grade band. We do so many great
things in my one-on-one coaching, but it feels so weird going to PLCs and
hearing how everyone else is doing it. I just want to say, ‘Guys, there’s a smarter
way to do this! There’s a better way to reach the students!’ But that’s not my job.
I stay in my lane. But yes, if she could lead PLC, we’d all be better.
Instructional coaches reported not having the ability to influence instruction beyond the
individual teacher level. This was especially salient among instructional coaches who supported
multiple schools. Coach H, who supports teachers in four schools, believed, “It is beyond the
scope of my work to build relationships with all the teachers in the grade-level, grade band, or
content area department. I barely have time to get from school to school to see the teachers on

103
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
my caseload.” Similarly, Coach B, who supports teachers in five schools, declared, “I have so
many teachers. I can’t handle anyone else. I actually wish I could coach less than what I have
now.” These instructional coaches who coached in multiple schools believed that they simply did
not have the time or capacity to support anyone other than those who were assigned to. This was
not seen as an indictment of their personal abilities, but rather a product of their working
conditions, which they felt like they had not agency over.
Even instructional coaches who supported just one school expressed these same feelings.
Coach D asserted that influencing instruction at broad levels would require collaboration with
the school administrators. "My relationship with the principal is not strong enough to support this
type of collaboration,” Coach D expressed, “I feel like the principal actively avoids me. I don’t
even get my regular check-in with my principal, so there’s no way I can talk about getting the
whole math team together. I just can’t make impact in that way.” Still other coaches shared that
school administrators do not know that instructional coaches have the capacity to support gradelevel, grade band, content area department, or schoolwide instructional planning. Coach
H reflected,
I have this bird-eye perspective about the instruction at the school, and the content
knowledge and relationships with teachers, but I don’t think the principal even
knows that I know all of this stuff. That I have ideas and can see them through, if
she’d let me.
Similarly, Teacher K claimed, “[School administrators] impact [my coach’s] success
by.... not giving her that full autonomy to do what she believes an instructional coach should do,
and what we truly need.” In agreement, Teacher B added,

104
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
I agree, just in the sense that...you know, [school administrators] kind of have the
final say in it all... I'm not sure as a whole, if they're aligned with being openminded to and allowing the coach to make decisions. They don’t give the coach
this space to kind of do what they think will really move things for the whole
school. For specific teachers, yes. But for, like, the whole grade or whole school,
no.
In summary, participants expressed a strong feeling that instructional coaches are
unsuccessful in large-scale improvement of instructional practice. They acknowledge that while
instructional coaches influence individual teachers while they are supporting them, the impact of
coaching wanes once that coaching relationship stops because, without the authority to make
higher-level decisions, individual teachers’ instructional practices inevitably revert to their precoaching ways. In this same vein, instructional coaches had little to no influence on the
instructional practice of teachers they did not coach.
Instructional Coaches’ Efficacy Expectancy and Outcome Expectancy
Conversations of instructional coaches’ self-efficacy require a deeper exploration of
efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy. Bandura (1977) explains that efficacy expectancy
describes one’s belief in their ability to successfully perform a task; in the instructional coaching
context, this corresponds to instructional coaches’ belief that they can perform coaching
behaviors to impact instruction. For example, participants in this study noted how instructional
coaches believed they could navigate scheduling conflicts to build relationships with teachers.
Efficacy expectancy is about competency. Outcome expectancy, on the other hand, revolves
around the impact of one’s efforts (Bandura, 1977). Outcome expectancy corresponds to
instructional coaches’ belief that the successful performance of tasks will result in improved

105
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instruction and student outcomes. For example, outcome expectancy describes coaches’ belief
that navigating scheduling conflicts to build relationships with teachers will ultimately lead to
improving the quality of teachers’ instruction and higher student achievement. In the context of
the school district in this study, instructional coaches did not have formal instructional
leadership; rather, they operated in leadership-adjacent roles. Thus, efficacy expectancy
influenced whether they enacted leadership behaviors, while outcome expectancy influenced
how persistently they pursued instructional improvement.
In this study, instructional coaches seemed to demonstrate consistently high outcome
expectancy across all tasks. That is, instructional coaches demonstrated a belief that the
instructional coaching task they attempted to engage in was meaningful and would lead to
meaningful impact on instruction. Conversely, instructional coaches displayed varying degrees
of efficacy expectancy, or their belief in their capability to successfully do the task they were
attempting to do. This efficacy expectancy was often couched in the language of “control,” with
study participants referring to either what instructional coaches could “control” -such as going
off-script during a coaching session if a teacher was having a stressful day and needed to vent- or
what was “out of instructional coaches’ control”- such as being able to influence entire gradebands of teachers through leading professional learning community meetings.
This high outcome expectancy with variations in efficacy expectancy manifested
different behaviors in instructional coaches. For tasks in which coaches had high outcome
expectancy but low efficacy expectancy, such as influencing instruction at a broad level,
instructional coaches demonstrated a fixed mindset. Instead of thinking of alternate solutions to
challenges with these tasks, instructional coaches allowed setbacks, such as limited time to with
school leaders, to derail their goals. Conversely, for tasks in which instructional coaches had

106
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
high outcome expectancy and moderate to high efficacy expectancy, such as building
relationships with teachers and impacting individual instruction, coaches demonstrated
persistence, resilience, and innovation in achieving their aims.
Because efficacy expectancy is a belief in capability and outcome expectancy is a belief
in impact, both are necessary in order for instructional coaches to sustain instructional leadership
behaviors. The variation in these constructs perhaps contributes to instructional coaches not
being perceived as instructional leaders, despite them displaying aspects in all three avenues of
Hallinger’s instructional leadership theory (2005).
Outlier Data and Findings
Most of the data corroborated the themes outlined above. Outlier findings, however, were
discovered for two themes. In one outlier finding, participants expressed a belief that the role of
the instructional coach is not designed to enact instructional leadership. In another outlier
finding, participants were able to consistently influence instructional practices beyond the
individual teacher level. Findings from these outliers diverged greatly from most participants’
experiences and are worthy of note in this study.
Outlier #1: Instructional Coaches Not Intended to Be Instructional Leaders
Although the findings of the thematic analysis demonstrate that instructional coaches had
mixed success in their ability to enact instructional leadership and be perceived as instructional
leaders, most participants felt that instructional coaches should act in some sort of instructional
leadership capacity. All teacher participants in this study thought that instructional coaches were
a part of the instructional leadership paradigm of their school, albeit not perceived as true
instructional leaders. Of the ten instructional coach participants in this study, nine of them
either directly stated or strongly alluded to the need and right for instructional coaches to be

107
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
considered instructional leaders. One coach participant, however, felt different. While this
instructional coach did not outright reject the label of “instructional leader,” she felt that
instructional coaches should not be instructional leaders.
Coach H is what many would consider a veteran in the education field. She was a
classroom teacher for 12 years, after which she assumed assistant principal, principal, and
education director roles before eventually turning to instructional coaching. Her experiences in
school leadership deeply influenced her perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of
instructional coaches. The following excerpt from the transcript of her interview shares her
visions of instructional leadership and instructional coaching:
Researcher: Okay, so how would you define instructional leadership?
Coach H: I don't think that instructional leadership and coaching are the same
thing.
Researcher: Okay.
Coach H: Instructional leadership would be knowing and understanding how
students…knowing, understanding, teaching moves that…can close a gap for all
students so that they can learn. And helping a teacher determine how to best
scaffold instruction so that they meet all of the needs of all of their learners.
Researcher: Can you tell me a little more? Can you give an example, I guess, or
some examples of instructional leadership in action?
Coach H: I think instructional leadership is the responsibility of the school
administration. And I believe that it's important for them to know the abilities of
their teachers and then give them what they need most. So, if I have a brand-new
teacher who is emergency certified. They don't even know teacher moves, then I

108
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
would be really, really, really direct and say, “You need to do ABC.” If I have
someone who's in the process of growing, I would.make a decision, like, what are
their strengths as a teacher? Where do they need to improve? And then have them
be reflective. And ask leading questions to get them, kind of, to where I want
them to be... so that I can help them grow in that area. And if I have a really
strong teacher, there's always room for improvement, and I would want, as an
instructional leader, I would want to know how to ask the best questions of them.
This view of instructional leadership is what many people believe to be part of
instructional coaches’ role, yet Coach H clearly stated that she doesn’t believe instructional
leadership and instructional coaching are the same thing. Because of this, Coach H was asked to
share her thoughts around instructional coaches’ role in instructional leadership.
Researcher: As a follow-up question, what role, if any, do you believe that
instructional coaches play in a school's instructional leadership? And I do want to
say, I do, you know, I did clearly hear you say you don't think that instructional
coaches and instructional leadership are the same thing.
Coach H: Yeah, that's correct.
Researcher: So that's why I'm asking, if any, what role do you think instructional
coaches play in the school's instructional leadership?
Coach H: I think they play a strong supporting role where an instructional
coach will work with a teacher, to help them grow individually and be more selfreflective. I think I might do better telling you what it's not and then maybe get to
the answer that way.
Researcher: That's fine.

109
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Coach H: I always used to think of coaching as “[Teacher], you did a great job.
You're, you know, you're doing A, B, and C. If, you know, if you try D, E, F, you
might get this kind of result, why don't you give it a try?” But now, after being a
school leader, I don't think that's the role of a coach. I think that's the role of the
educational leader. I think the coach is there to say, “You know, I’m really,
like, I'm seeing this, I'm seeing this, I'm seeing this. What do you think about
what I'm saying? Do you agree with what I'm seeing? Where do you think you
need to grow? What is an area that you're passionate about that you want to grow?
Where do you think your students need to be? How do you think we can get them
there?” I think it's more about probing the teacher and getting them to be selfreflective more than anything. I think that's the number one goal of the
instructional coach, is to have them grow, have teachers grow in, self-reflection,
self-efficacy, so that they take responsibility for their own learning and growing.
Researcher: Okay. Can you clarify how that role of the instructional coach plays a
role in a school's instructional leadership, if it does play a role?
Coach H: It does, it does play a role, and I see it as a supportive role... every
teacher can, whatever their skill level, benefit from instructional coaching;
emergency certified to novice to seasoned to whatever. I just see the instructional
leadership as a step beyond where you are giving specific feedback. You're giving
specific feedback to the lesson, to the teacher, about their skills and their abilities,
maybe. You’re expecting them to grow from that, whereas in the coaching
experience I’m not the one telling you what you need to do. And if I have
someone who I need to tell what to do, I think we talk about having a directive

110
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
style. I don't necessarily see that working. And I know coaching needs to be
confidential, and I'm fine with that, but I also wonder if it would benefit students
if I, as a coach, see poor instruction that is not improving how I can turn that over
to the instructional leadership team.
Coach H identifies a clear distinction between instructional leadership and instructional
coaching. She views instructional leadership as being a more directive route towards improving
instructional practice, with instructional leaders explicitly telling teachers what changes to make
to their instruction. Conversely, Coach H believes that instructional coaching is less direct and
more facilitative, calling upon coaches to inspire teachers to contemplate their instruction
and determine which areas to develop. This perspective was vastly different from all other
participants, who acknowledged that coaches cannot work in a directive capacity but believed
that they should be able to.
It is possible that this divergence from the central findings of the data may be attributed
to a difference in Coach H’s professional experiences prior to instructional coaching. Unlike any
of the other instructional coach participants in this study, Coach H’s professional career included
school administration, with Coach H having served as both an assistant principal and a principal
at several schools. Additionally, Coach H held an educational director position for a network of
public charter schools in the school district represented in this study. In her experiences in these
top-level leadership roles, Coach H employed, supervised, and partnered with instructional
coaches. Her experiences in leadership may have colored her perceptions about instructional
coaches’ instructional leadership. For instance, Coach H noted that school leaders have a duty to
be more directive with teachers in their efforts to improve instruction. In her experiences in
educational leadership, Coach H may have felt a stronger sense of obligation and urgency for

111
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
improving instruction, as the person who is ultimately responsible for instruction and student
outcomes in a school. Coach H’s firsthand experience of the weight of school leadership seemed
to inform her vision of instructional coaches playing an auxiliary role to instructional leadership,
imbuing a nuance to the role that those without school leadership experience may not appreciate.
Other instructional coaches reference the gravity of principals’ school leadership, but do not have
the intimate understanding of the legal, professional, social, and moral significance of said
leadership. This understanding is possibly the root cause of Coach H’s distinction between
instructional coaches and instructional leadership.
Coach H’s divergent stance complicates common instructional leadership conceptions
that equate influence with leadership. Rather than reflecting resistance to leadership practice, this
outlier finding suggests a boundary condition in which instructional leadership identity is
structurally decoupled from influence. Coach H’s understanding of instructional leadership is
bound by ideas of formalized authority and more directive interactions that she does not believe
are part of the instructional coaching role. In contexts wherein instructional coaching roles lack
the traditional hallmarks of leadership, such as supervisory and evaluator capacities, Hallinger’s
(2007) instructional leadership theory may overextend its assumptions about leadership role
internalization.
Outlier #2: Ease of Making Broad-Level Impact
A second outlier in the data revolved around the success and ease of instructional coaches
impacting instruction at a broad level. All the teacher participants and most of the instructional
coach participants who discussed this theme remarked on the limited success coaches had
influencing instructional practices at the grade, grade band, or department levels. Two coaches,
however, reported a relative ease of supporting instruction beyond the individual teacher level.

112
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Both coaches had uniquely strong relationships with their principals, and these relationships
facilitated this ease of impact.
Coach C is among the most experienced instructional coaches of the participants, with
eight years of instructional coaching experience. In the course of her interview, Coach C
revealed that her principal was a former coach who worked alongside her. Because of this
intimate coworker relationship, the principal has a firm professional trust in Coach C’s capacity
and regularly invites Coach C to the decision-making table. The following excerpt from Coach
C’s interview reveals how this relationship affects Coach C’s work:
Coach C: Honestly, I think the biggest factor in my success is the principal at my
school. I don’t know if I have any influence over that or not. I guess I do. The
principal is my friend.
Researcher: Can you share a little more about your friendship with the principal?
And how that is a factor in your success as an instructional coach?
Coach C: Sure. Most people don’t know this; it’s not something we advertise, but
me and [the principal] used to be coaches together in the department. She was
there when I started, had been there for a couple of years before me. Since we
worked in the same network, we worked together a lot and became friends really
quickly. We did some coaching work together, a few PDs together...I even helped
her study for her principal cert and prep for her principal interviews. We know
each other. And professionally, I think we both trust each other’s judgment, you
know. Like, when we were both coaches, I’d come to her with an idea like, “Blah
blah blah is happening with this teacher, and I think I should do ABC. What do
you think? Give me some feedback.” And she just always thought I had really

113
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
smart ideas. And vice versa too. So, when I was assigned to support her school
when she became a principal...it was the same thing. She’s still her and I’m still
me. She still knows she can trust my judgment. I can look at the data, evaluate it,
and make plans to really move the data. So, I have a great relationship with my
principal, and I can get a lot of stuff done because of that.
Researcher: When you say you can “get a lot of stuff done because of that,” what
exactly do you mean? Can you give an example?
Coach C: Well, I know that a lot of other coaches have tricky relationships with
their principals. Or even if they have a great relationship, they don’t have their
principal’s ear like I do. Like, I am sort of in charge of the middle school ELA.
We have a good school-based teacher leader for K-5 ELA, so I support them. But
in middle school, I’m the top dog. I make the decisions. I analyze the data, I meet
with the teachers, even the ones I don’t directly coach. I make response-to-data
plans for 6th-8th grade and [the principal] always okays them because she knows I
know what I’m doing. Do I still have to go through her to get permission? Yes.
But sometimes I just do the thing, whatever my idea is I just implement it and tell
[the principal] after the fact and that’s always okay with her because she knows
my work is A-1. She personally knows my work is A-1.
In her role as an instructional coach, Coach C leveraged her prior professional connection
with her principal to drive some high-level initiatives. She contended that she has a de facto
autonomy, making decisions and enacting instructional plans with the confidence that she will
always be supported by the principal, her former close coworker. For Coach C, her unique

114
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
relationship with her school leader gave her a degree of instructional leadership that most of the
other coaches in this research did not experience.
Similarly, Coach G’s nuanced partnership with her principal afforded her the opportunity
to impact instruction at higher levels. Coach G is fairly new to the role, having coached for two
years after ten years of teaching. Coach G shared that her principal is also new to her role and
gladly distributes instructional leadership as she finds her footing as a school administrator. The
following excerpt from Coach G’s interview transcript highlights this experience:
Coach G: Well, I would say that I am a real instructional leader at my school.
Interviewer: What makes you say that? What makes you a “real instructional
leader”?
Coach G: Well, both me and my principal, we are both new. This is my second
year coaching and this is her first year as a principal. We met before school
started and we just kind of clicked. I don’t know if it was really us clicking or her
feeling overwhelmed, but she just kind of gave me full reign.
Interviewer: Can you give a little more detail, just to make sure that I understand
you clearly? I don’t want to make any assumptions. What do you mean when you
say she gave you “full reign”?
Coach G: Basically, the math and the ELA departments are mine. She’s at the
top, you know; the buck stops with her. But when it comes to math and ELA, I’m
just one little notch below her. Basically, she’s trying to learn how to be a
principal. She knows instruction really well, but she didn’t anticipate a principal
being so much more than just instruction. So, we meet regularly, and she keeps a

115
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
pulse on math and ELA, and of course I run all my ideas past her, but I essentially
run the math and ELA departments.
Interviewer: Thank you. Again, just for clarity, what do you mean when you say
you “run” the math and ELA departments? What does that look like or sound
like?
Coach G: Team leads meet with me. I hold the weekly PLC meetings; I decide the
scope and sequence of PLC meetings. I meet with our math and ELA professional
learning specialists and do the walkthroughs, draft the feedback. [The principal] is
also invited to come, but her presence is optional. If she is absent and I’m here,
we still hold the walkthrough; if I am absent and [the principal] is still here, we
reschedule the walkthrough for a day that I am here. Not saying that I am more
important than [the principal], but all of math and ELA is under my charge.
Through her permission.
As with Coach C, Coach G’s relationship with her principal is built around a faith in her
instructional capabilities. Unlike Coach C’s scenario, Coach G’s principal had faith in Coach
C’s abilities not because of concrete experiences; instead, the principal seemed to have a blind
faith borne out of the principal’s need to devote her attention to non-instructional tasks. Although
the nuance of each relationship is different, each coach has granted authority to make decisions
at broad levels. While these two coaches needed permission from their principals to implement
their decisions, this permission is perceived to be performative in nature. These two outlier
coaches operate with a high degree of professional autonomy and wide-ranging impact that other
participants did not experience.

116
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
This difference in autonomy most likely represents a different infrastructure for
distributed instructional leadership in these two instructional coaches’ contexts than in the other
eight instructional coaches’ contexts. One structural difference appears to be the communication
of leadership. Although the Coach C’s and Coach G’s principals did not explicitly tell others that
the instructional coaches are instructional leaders, they have strongly implied these coaches’
instructional leadership. For instance, having an instructional coach facilitate professional
learning community meetings sends a clear, albeit nonverbal, message that the instructional
coach is a leader of that community. Likewise, allowing an instructional coach to be the primary
host for district educational leaders implicitly establishes instructional coaches’ instructional
leadership. Communication is one of Spillane’s channels for distributed leadership (2005), and
the outlier experiences of these instructional coaches demonstrate that both implicit and explicit
communication support distributed leadership.
Regular partnership with top leaders and shared decision-making are also structures that
buoy distributed leadership, both of which were present in these outlier examples. Coach C’s
friendship with her school leader gave her consistent access to the school leader. This access
afforded Coach C with frequent opportunities to share information, align on vision, and chart
instructional leadership actions together. Similarly, Coach G’s secure relationship with her
principal, characterized by “clicking” early in their relationship, gives Coach G the ability to
“meet regularly” with her principal despite the principal’s overwhelm with other professional
duties. Their constant communication and trust afforded Coach G with the ability to
instructionally lead two content areas and meet with district leaders in lieu of the principal. Once
again, although informal, the infrastructure for distributed leadership experienced by these
outlier coaches supported their enactment of instructional leadership.

117
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Coach C’s and Coach G’s outlier experiences do not necessarily challenge instructional
leadership theory or illustrate a boundary condition. Instead, they can likely be attributed to a
contextual variation. In each of their contexts, their relative ease with impacting wide-range
instruction was enabled by their relationship with and endorsement from their principals. In other
words, the distributed leadership ecology of their schools structurally facilitated how their two
coaches were perceived as instructional leaders. These two instructional coaches’ experiences do
not undermine the validity of the general findings and interpretations of other coaches’
experiences; rather, Coach C and Coach G had more ideal relationships with their schools’
leaders, structural access to authority, and more communications -both verbal and non-verbalfrom their principals that more strongly signaled the distributed leadership given to these
coaches. The perceived ease of these two coaches likely reflects contextual optimization, not
theoretical contradiction.
Research Question Responses
This study sought to answer the central research question, “What are the instructional
leadership experiences of instructional coaches in a large, urban city?” This central research
question was broken down into sub-questions: “How do instructional coaches perceive and enact
instructional leadership?” and “What factors influence how instructional coaches perceive and
enact instructional leadership?” As a phenomenological study, the primary purpose of this study
was to examine the experiences of participants and how they make meaning of their experiences.
Through a careful thematic analysis of individual semi-structured interviews with instructional
coach participants and focus group interviews with teacher participants, the central research
questions and two sub-questions were answered.

118
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Central Research Question
What are the instructional leadership experiences of instructional coaches in a large,
urban city? The participants’ experiences of instructional coaches’ instructional leadership were
centered around their understanding of instructional leadership. Participants viewed instructional
leadership as being composed of two strands: content knowledge and autonomous decisionmaking authority. The overwhelming majority of study participants did not believe that
instructional coaches fully experienced an instructional leader role; even though instructional
coaches were able to be the content knowledge experts in their schools, they did not have the
authority to independently execute their vision for impacting instructional practice on a large
scale. Additionally, despite the strong personal relationships instructional coaches formed with
teachers which facilitated improved individual practice, instructional coaches were not perceived
as instructional leaders by the teachers in their schools. Coach E hyperbolically declared,
“Everyone thinks I know everything, but everyone also knows that I can’t do anything.”
Participants rated instructional coaches’ success in varying degrees, with more success being
experienced in aspects of the role for which coaches had high feelings of self-efficacy and less
success in aspects of the role for which coaches had low feelings of self-efficacy. Teacher D
reflected on his coach's success, claiming, “In some ways she’s successful and in some ways
she’s not...I think she does what she can...but a lot of it is not in her control.”
Sub-Question One
How do instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional leadership? Instructional
coaches perceived instructional leadership as the authority to make large-scale and small-scale
decisions to impact instruction based on ones’ high content knowledge, understanding of the
vertical trajectory of learning, and ability to create and use interpersonal relationships with

119
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
stakeholders to facilitate growth. Instructional coaches were able to enact many of these facets of
instructional leadership, such as constantly developing their pedagogical and content knowledge
and strategically cultivating relationships with teachers, school administrators, and other
coaches. They were not, however, able to enact the autonomy believed to be central to
instructional leadership; this lack of autonomy limited their impact on instruction to mostly the
individual teachers they supported despite their insights on larger scales of instruction.
Consequently, instructional coaches were not perceived as full instructional leaders.
Summarizing these notions succinctly, Teacher C noted, “
[My instructional coach] definitely should be an instructional leader in my school.
She knows everything. Like, she knows the stuff and knows what we should
do. But she doesn’t have the power to make anything happen. She should be the
leader, but without that power, she’s not.
Sub-Question Two
What factors influence how instructional coaches perceive and enact instructional
leadership? Instructional coaches’ content knowledge and ability to build relationships with
teachers, school leaders, and other instructional coaches appeared to have a high impact on
instructional coaches’ experience and perception of instructional leadership. Instructional
coaches demonstrated feelings of high self-efficacy and success in these areas of instructional
leadership. Instructional coaches’ experiences of instructional leadership were also greatly
influenced by their autonomy and by their ability to impact instruction on small and large scales.
Instructional coaches reported feeling low self-efficacy and medium to low levels of success in
these aspects of instructional leadership. Coach I succinctly shared, “I think I’m successful...I

120
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
would be more successful if I could do more, but that’s out of my control so I just stay in
my lane.”
Summary
Instructional coach participants in this study experienced their instructional leadership in
a limited capacity. For a variety of reasons, school administrators did not communicate their
professional expectations of instructional coaches to teachers or the coaches themselves. As a
result, instructional coaches and teachers used their own experiences and perceptions to
determine whether instructional coaches were perceived as instructional leaders. Participants
believed that instructional coaches enacted some aspects of instructional leadership strongly,
including building relationships with others and demonstrating high content knowledge.
Participants noted, however, that instructional coaches could not exercise the autonomy and
decision-making authority required to be an instructional leader, and thus instructional coaches
were not perceived as instructional leaders. This mixed ability to enact instructional leadership
was reflected in mixed feelings of success for the instructional coaches; instructional coaches felt
and were perceived as successful in aspects over which instructional coaches had high selfefficacy and felt and were perceived as unsuccessful in aspects over which they had low selfefficacy.

121
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Overview
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to gain clearer, more in-depth insights into
how instructional coaches in a major northeastern urban city experience their instructional
leadership as well as how others perceive them as instructional leaders. This chapter aims
to refine and interpret the findings of this study. The theoretical, methodological, practical, and
policy-related implications of these findings are explored. Limitations and possible
delimitations of this study are discussed. Lastly, recommendations for future research are
offered.
Discussion
This research afforded instructional coaches and the teachers that they support the
opportunity to share the essence of instructional coaches’ experiences with instructional
leadership. Specifically, how these educators make meaning of instructional leadership, how
instructional coaches are perceived in light of this meaning, and how these experiences and
perceptions impact instructional coaches’ feelings of success and self-efficacy were explored.
The thematic analysis of these findings has meaningful implications for the instructional
coaches, school leaders, and teachers. Additionally, there are implications for instructional
coaching preparation programs. The following subsections detail these implications in-depth.
Interpretation of Findings
Using a phenomenological approach, the data underwent rigorous thematic analysis
to identify core themes, which were then refined to produce in-depth interpretations. The
following themes were revealed as findings in the thematic analysis of the data: Role Ambiguity

122
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
and Fractured Instructional Leadership, Relational Trust as Enabler, and Perceived Agency and
Coaching Self-Efficacy.
Summary of Thematic Findings
The theme Role Ambiguity and Fractured Instructional Leadership describes how study
participants define instructional leadership and how instructional coaches enact instructional
leadership. Similar to Miller et al.’s (2019) findings, participants voiced minimal communication
from school leaders about instructional coaches’ duties. Teachers who were supported by
instructional coaches came to understand the instructional coaches’ roles through either
the coaches’ explicit messaging or through professional experiences with instructional coaches.
Instructional coaches did not receive any messaging from school administrators about the
expectations or responsibilities of the instructional coaches, despite it being a hallmark of
effective instructional coaching to do so (Reid, 2019). Interestingly, despite not communicating
the responsibilities of instructional coaches to teachers, school leaders communicated teachers’
obligations towards instructional coaches. This lack of clear messaging about instructional
coaches’ duties was attributed to various reasons such as school administrators not understanding
instructional coaches’ professional duties. Participants also theorized that school administrators
were deliberately withholding communication about instructional coaches’ roles and
responsibilities so that instructional coaches could perform duties outside of their job description,
aligning with the findings of Galey-Horn and Woulfin, (2021), Kho et al. (2019), and Miller et
al. (2019).
Without a clear and uniform understanding of instructional coaches’ responsibilities,
participants used their own experiences with instructional leadership and instructional coaching
to determine how instructional coaches experience instructional leadership. Consistent with

123
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Hallinger’s (2005) instructional leadership dimension of cultivating the learning environment,
instructional coach participants were able to leverage their high content and pedagogical
knowledge to facilitate individual professional learning experiences for teachers via instructional
coaching. In sharp contrast, participants reported that coaches had limited direct agency or
influential access to shape school-level visions for instructional improvement, Hallinger’s (2005)
first dimension of instructional leadership. Additionally, role boundaries expressly prohibited
some tenets of managing the instructional program (Hallinger, 2005) such as evaluating teachers
(Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021) and monitoring student progress through independent access to
standardized testing data (Munson & Saclarides, 2022). For these reasons, instructional coaches
displayed some aspects of instructional leadership but were not perceived as instructional
leaders.
The theme Relational Trust as an Enabler explores how instructional coaches
intentionally cultivated relationships with various stakeholders so that they may have the impact
needed to be successful, confirming Knight’s (2007) and Cardenas et al.’s (2024) claims that
instructional coaches’ development of high relational trust deepens their impact. Both
instructional coach and teacher coach participants noted that instructional coaches built strong,
trusting partnerships with the teachers they coach. Instructional coaches expressed a belief in
their ability to create productive relationships with teachers, demonstrating that despite obstacles
such as limited face-to-face time with teachers or teachers’ high feelings of stress, they could use
deliberate relational moves to nurture rapport and professional confidence.
In a similar vein, instructional coaches were strategically connected with school
leaders to have influence. Instructional coaches were aware that their independent ability to make
decisions –for themselves, for teachers, and for the schools they work in- was limited, and that

124
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
school administrators were the power holders for these decisions. Instructional coaches
developed relationships with school administrators to both understand how to best collaborate
with them as well as to be sure the intentions behind their proposed plans were perceived as
supportive. Such relationships with administrators were intended to broaden instructional
coaches’ influence and allow them to enact more aspects of instructional leadership than could
be achieved without school leaders’ explicit support. These findings validate Reid’s (2019)
claims that trust between instructional coaches and school leaders is an enabler of instructional
coaches’ work with teachers, positioning instructional coach-school leader relationships as a
primary catalysts for panoramic impact.
Instructional coaches also built relationships with other instructional coaches to propel
their work. One difference between the relationships that coaches built with teachers and
administrators and the relationships that coaches built with other coaches is that whereas the
former was perceived as one of instructional coaches’ professional duties, the latter was
perceived as an auxiliary move to grow their own skillset, corroborating the findings of Knight
(2007), Denton and Hasbrook (2009), and Killion and Harris (2017) that assert that instructional
coaches must continually develop their professional knowledge and abilities in order to be
impactful. For these peer-to-peer relationships, instructional coaches evaluated their colleagues’
success and created opportunities to network with those who they deemed successful.
Lastly, the theme Perceived Agency and Coaching Self-Efficacy details how instructional
coaches experienced different efficacy expectancies in various tasks for which they held the
same outcome expectancy (Bandura, 1977). Participants did not measure instructional coaches’
success as one single entity; to the contrary, participants disaggregated the perceived
responsibilities of coaches and evaluated instructional coaches’ success in several areas that they

125
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
expected would lead to improved instruction. Instructional coaches’ feelings of self-efficacy for
various professional responsibilities seemed to directly impact how successful they were deemed
to be in those components of their job. Aspects of coaching over which instructional coaches
believed that had an internal locus of control and high self-efficacy, such as building
relationships with teachers, were deemed to be success areas for coaches. Conversely, aspects of
coaching over which the instructional coaches felt an external locus of control and experienced
low self-efficacy, such as influencing instruction at a high-level, were deemed to be unsuccessful
areas for coaches. Instructional coaches experienced and perceived mixed success in areas in
which they had a moderate level of self-efficacy and small degree of internal locus of control.
Standardization Facilitates Instructional Coaches’ Instructional Leadership
One standout interpretation from the findings that confirms the work of numerous other
educational researchers (Kane & Rosenquist, 2019; Reid, 2019; Shaked, 2022; Voelkel et al.,
2023; Warnock et al., 2022) is that there is a need for a measure of standardization in
instructional coaches’ roles, responsibilities, and skillset. Simply put, participants did not have a
uniform understanding of what instructional coaches' professional duties are, nor did they believe
the school leaders had this understanding. When asked about instructional coaches’ general
responsibilities, participants gave an assortment of answers. Although some patterns in responses
demonstrated a few commonly understood duties of instructional coaches, such as “build
relationships with teachers” and “model lessons for teachers,” responses generally varied
greatly. Of particular interest is the fact that all coaches participating in this study were all hired
through the same department within the same district and have received the same onboarding
training, yet they made different meanings about what it is to be an instructional coach. As
Denton and Hasbrouck (2009) point out, instructional coaches at large do not have a standard

126
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
understanding of what their job duties entail. A singular, all-encompassing description of
instructional coaching could ease some of the challenges that arise from the uncertainty about
instructional coaches’ job (Kane & Rosenquist, 2019; Reid, 2019).
This standardization may also facilitate instructional coaches’ instructional leadership.
This may occur in two ways. In one vein, with uniform expectations around instructional
coaches’ professional duties, school leaders will have a clear understanding of what instructional
coaches can do. Participants of the study noted that school administrators oftentimes were
unaware of both what instructional coaches were authorized to do and what instructional coaches
had the capacity to do. If instructional leaders have a firm understanding of what instructional
coaches have the capacity to do, instructional leaders may be more inclined to extend
instructional leadership work to coaches. For example, instructional coach participants in our
study voiced a capacity to do group coaching or develop plans to enhance the instruction of
multiple teachers at once. Coach E shared, “Coaching is not just one-on-one. I can do small
group coaching...or even a whole grade-band.” Not only did coaches have this capacity, but they
also believed it to be an effective way to get coaching traction and sustain new practices in
teachers even when instructional coaching has stopped. Coach A shared,
In order to really proliferate change with a teacher, real change, I would have to
work with the whole grade-level. Because grade-partners work together more than
the coach ever could, they have the potential to influence each other more than I
could or anyone else.
Brandmo et al.’s (2021) research confirms that working with groups of teachers on the
same goal can support individual teachers’ continued improvement. If school leaders understand
that a chief way to sustain improved individual teacher practice is to develop the practice of

127
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
connected groups of teachers such as grade teams or content departments (Sutton & Crobach,
2022), then school leaders may charge instructional coaches to collaborate with these groups of
teachers. Such work will lead to the high-level impact that instructional coaches desire, support
them in managing the instructional program and promoting a positive learning climate at their
school, and consequently support them in enacting instructional leadership as outlined by
Hallinger (2005).
A standardization of instructional coaches’ responsibilities may also afford instructional
coaches the opportunity to more effectively enact instructional leadership. Participants in this
study reported that, at times, instructional coaches were asked or required to do duties that fall
outside of what is typically perceived as instructional coaching. Some participants asserted that
school leaders were deliberately vague about instructional coaches’ expectations for the express
reason of having instructional coaches engage in tasks outside of their job description. As
alluded to earlier in this research, Teacher D implied that school leaders intentionally keep
instructional coaches’ job duties vague to that they can "fill many roles that you would not
normally expect a literacy coach to fill.” The finding confirms that the work of educational
researchers who purport that this is a rather common experience for instructional coaches.
Researchers such as Kho et al. (2019), Voelkel et al. (2023), and Woodward and Thoma
(2021) have demonstrated that use of instructional coaches for duties outside of the coaching role
obscures their ability to be seen as instructional leaders. It is plausible that school leaders
intentionally assign non-coaching related duties to instructional coaches, as school leaders find
themselves overwhelmed by the sheer amount of managerial and administrative tasks that
impede their own instructional leadership (McBrayer et al., 2018). In an effort to free
themselves to show up as instructional leaders, school administrators may be limiting others’

128
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
ability to enact instructional leadership. It stands to reason, then, that providing a standard
definition of instructional coaching and clear uniform expectations around instructional coaches’
professional duties could limit instructional coaches’ engagement in auxiliary
responsibilities. When instructional coaches’ duties and roles are clear for all, there may be less
room for instructional coaches to do anything outside of them. Consequently, instructional
coaches who act more frequently as instructional coaches may be more likely to feel like and
be perceived as instructional leaders.
Inclusion of Instructional Coaches in a Distributed Leadership Model
Another compelling interpretation of this study’s findings is that there is room and a need
for instructional coaches to be included in distributed leadership models in schools. Distributed
leadership describes a collaborative approach to leadership in which leadership duties are shared
among various stakeholders in an organization instead of being held by one sole leader (Spillane,
2005). Distributed leadership approaches can be particularly useful for the enacting of
instructional leadership in school systems. High-level leaders in schools who are typically
viewed as the instructional leaders, such as principals and assistant principals, are often restricted
in their ability to act as instructional leaders for a variety of reasons, such as inadequate content
knowledge (Cunningham & Lochmiller, 2020; Shaked, 2023), limited capacity due to
administrative and managerial tasks (McBrayer, et al., 2018; Noor & Nawab, 2022),
and conflicting duties that impede trusting relationships (Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021; Kraft &
Gilmour, 2016). In spite of these restrictions, school systems need strong instructional
leadership to effectively function.
Throughout this research, instructional coaches were described as possessing high
content knowledge, one of the tenets of instructional leadership. Teacher participants

129
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
like Teacher J explained how their instructional coach knew more “than any other adult in the
building” in their content area or general pedagogy. Coach participants demonstrated a firm
belief that staying abreast of recent instructional and pedagogical research is a unique obligation
required of instructional coaches, with Coach D asserting that it is instructional coaches’ “job” to
do so. Several instructional coach participants detailed their methods of learning, such as
attending professional development seminars, devoting regular time in their schedule to building
their skill and knowledge base, and intentional collaboration with well-informed peers.
Such perceptions of instructional coaches’ knowledge base demonstrate Tang et al.’s
(2022) findings that middle-level leaders like instructional coaches could serve a much-needed
role in a distributed instructional leadership system in schools. There could be a two-way benefit
to including instructional coaches in schools’ distributed instructional leadership paradigms.
Schools would benefit from the potential for greater alignment between vision and
practice. If instructional coaches are at the table when a school’s goals are being mapped out,
they have firsthand understanding of them and can influence the fidelity and depth of
implementing school initiatives in classrooms (Hashim, 2020). Instructional coaches can benefit
from being included in a distributive instructional leadership framework as it would contribute to
their capacity to have high-level impact. As instructional coaches are given the authority to
support the horizontal and vertical execution of a school’s vision, their ability to build rapport
en masse and impact instruction at scale is increased. As demonstrated in this study, increasing
instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for large-scale impact is related to higher perceptions of
instructional coaches’ success.
Challenging Assumptions About Distributed Leadership

130
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Some findings from this study challenge the underlying assumptions that undergird
distributed leadership theory. Distributed leadership theory implies that leadership is stretched
across multiple personnel in school through shared agency, common aims, and unified
experiences (Spillane 2005, 2006). Embedded in this implication is the conceptualization of
leadership as a practice and not a specific position, with leadership existing as a product of
people and interactions in specific situations (Spillane, 2006). As the experiences and
perceptions of study participants illustrate, this is not always so. For instance, according to
leading conceptions of distributed leadership theory, expertise will often lead to leadership, as
those who are the most skilled, knowledgeable, or best suited to address situations would amass
followers in their work (Harris & Jones, 2024). Study participants, to the contrary, identified
instructional coaches as the content knowledge and pedagogy experts in their building but did
not perceive them to be leaders. This was because these instructional coaches, despite their
expertise, did not have the authority that participants assumed was part and partial of leadership.
Without a certain level of power, instructional coaches were not seen as legitimate instructional
leaders, despite the high levels of expertise they brought to their contexts (Shaked, 2024). This
finding suggests that perhaps distributed leadership’s focus on leadership as a practice may
underestimate how concepts of power and legitimacy impact leadership, consequently
downplaying the need for formal structures to distribute leadership.
The experiences and perceptions of participants in this study also bring to light another
tension in distributed leadership theory and its practice. Owing to its belief that leadership arises
from interactions and situations, distributed leadership theory assumes that schools have the
capacity to sustain the relationships that support said leadership (Spillane, 2005). Distributed
leadership theory assumes that trust and collaboration are norms in schools. As evidenced by the

131
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
anecdotes of this study’s instructional coach participants, trust and collaboration between
instructional coaches and school leaders is delicate, built on the instructional coaches’ behalf
through a careful dance of seizing opportunities to meet with school leaders and learning
instructional leaders’ personalities. At a base level, there does not seem to be the protected time
for principal and instructional coaches to collaborate and build trust. Instructional coaches
consistently framed meetings with school leaders as conditional, “if” school leaders were able to
meet. This ambiguity in and of itself cannot sustain the deep relational trust implied in
distributed leadership theory. On a deeper level, instructional coaches characterize meetings
between themselves and school leaders as overly cautious so as not to offend leaders with their
suggestions. It can be inferred that such caution is necessary because relationships between
school leaders and instructional coaches are not as trusting and intimate as they should be in a
current conception of distributed leadership theory. Distributed leadership requires a sense of
psychological safety, and the relational context of the school may deeply moderate how
effectively leadership can be distributed.
Instructional Coaches Are Not Intended to Be Instructional Leaders
Another thought-provoking interpretation of the findings is that perhaps instructional
coaches are not perceived as instructional leaders because instructional coaches are not intended
to be instructional leaders. Original conceptions of the instructional leadership theory (Hallinger,
2005) analyzed instructional leadership through the lens of the principal as the instructional
leader; more recent researchers such as Eadens and Ceballos (2023) have viewed instructional
leadership as existing along a continuum with the potential for staff members in middle positions
of the organizational hierarchy to occupy instructional leadership positions. The findings of this
study, then, could be viewed through the lens of whether they formally extended Hallinger’s

132
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
(2005) leadership theory to instructional coaches. While participants noted instructional
leadership qualities in instructional coaches, they did not view instructional coaches as true
instructional leaders. One plausible explanation for this is that although they are uniquely poised
for instructional leadership and possess some invaluable characteristics, instructional coaches
cannot be instructional leaders because the instructional coaching role is not designed for
instructional leadership. This presents an interesting conundrum that deserves a deeper
exploration of instructional coaches’ roles in light of instructional leadership theory.
A core component of school-level instructional leadership is oversight for the
instructional success for an entire school (Cuban, 1988; McBrayer et al., 2018). The three
avenues of instructional leadership- defining the school mission, managing instructional
programming, and cultivating the learning environment- require both low-level and high-level
understanding of a school’s functions (Hallinger, 2005). Instructional coaches in this study did
not have roles with this type of panoramic responsibility. In fact, the design of most instructional
coaching paradigms includes working one-on-one with teachers on singular, specific goals, not
with all teams in a school or even the same grade (Knight, 2019). According to Kraft and Blazar
(2018), building strong rapport and tailoring support to meet strengths and needs are typically
achieved on an individual or small-team level to account for the personal differences. Barring an
instructional coach supporting every teacher in a school, instructional coaches’ roles combined
with the limitations imposed on them by time and capacity do not allow them to
have a comprehensive understanding of instruction and teachers in a school.
Some may even argue that not only are instructional coaches not intended to be
instructional leaders, but also that they do not need to be positional leaders in order to have a
strong impact. The purpose of instructional leadership is to improve student learning outcomes

133
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
through high quality instruction and teacher professional development (Hallinger, 2005).
Whereas Hallinger’s (2005) conception of instructional leadership usually implies authority and
supervision (Khan et al., 2009), instructional coaches improve instructional practice through
relational influence. Extending formal positions of instructional leadership to instructional
coaches could change how teachers view instructional coaches; instead of being perceived as
partners in practice, instructional coaches who are formally designated instructional leaders may
be viewed as “agents of compliance” (Galey-Horn & Woulfin, 2021). This may shift the
motivation for teachers’ changes in practice from an authentic desire to grow to mere
subordination to a school authority. Consequently, the sustainability of these instructional
improvements may wane once these practices are no longer prioritized, monitored, and given
feedback. This illustrates how official instructional leadership roles for instructional coaches may
be counterproductive.
Lastly, endowing instructional coaches with formal instructional leader roles may cause
internal tension within the instructional coaching role itself. Instructional leadership is typically
of an evaluative nature, through its managing the instructional program dimension (Hallinger,
2005, 2021). Formal instructional leaders are often assigned tasks such as instructional
walkthroughs, regular data monitoring and conferencing, initiative enforcement, and teacher
remediation (Cuban, 1988). These duties may compromise the trust and confidentiality that are
often viewed as part and partial of an effective instructional coaching relationship. Such role
ambiguity may create a sense of unease and mistrust in teachers for instructional coaches,
thereby straining the potential for positive impact.
Instructional Coaches’ Self-Efficacy Shapes Impact and Success

134
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
A final worthy interpretation of the findings is that, consistent with Bandura’s (1977)
self-efficacy theory, the amount of self-efficacy an instructional coach has for an aspect of their
role influences the success and lasting impact the coach has in that aspect. Participants in this
study implied that instructional coaches were more successful in instructional coaching duties
over which they believed they could influence. The most common of these reported
responsibilities was building relationships with teachers, with Teacher G capturing the essence of
this sentiment by sharing, “In the beginning, [my instructional coach] does everything she can to
make sure that we feel comfortable and safe working with her...she is definitely successful in
getting us to trust her and feel comfortable to do the work.” Instructional coach
participants demonstrated persistence and proactiveness in high self-efficacy areas, flexibly
adapting strategies to build connections with resistant and hard to reach teachers. For instance,
multiple coaches in this study shared anecdotes of having mini coaching sessions with teachers
in busy copy rooms when time was limited or impromptu modeling when real-time instructional
challenges sprang up during a lesson observation. Such behaviors align with Bandura’s (1977)
assertions about self-efficacy’s impact on motivation, perseverance, and addressing challenges.
This same persistence and proactivity were not noted in job duties for which instructional
coaches believed they had little influence. For example, instructional coach participants
believed that they were unsuccessful at making high-level instructional change in schools, as this
was seen as dependent on their relationship with school leaders. These participants did not
consider more grassroots, ground-up methods of high-level instructional change, such as
elevating the successful use of new instructional practices with coached teachers to gain interest
and buy-in from teachers the instructional coach is not currently supporting (Ehrich & English,
2012).

135
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
While its own distinct concept, this study’s findings around self-efficacy’s impact on
instructional coaches’ persistence in instructional leadership tasks appears to be related to
Skaalvik’s (2020) research surrounding self-efficacy and task avoidance. Skaalvik (2020) asserts
that when an educator’s self-efficacy in a domain -such as instructional leadership - is low, the
educator will feel unsuccessful; seeking to avoid the discomfort of low self-efficacy, the educator
will avoid tasks in that domain and effectively disengage from that work (Skaalvik, 2020).
Although instructional coaches in this study did not completely avoid tasks in more challenging
instructional leadership areas, such as producing wide-ranging instructional improvement, they
did appear to disengage from the progressive problem-solving that they exemplified in other
areas of instructional leadership. As such, it seems that instructional coaches’ self-efficacy for
the various responsibilities embedded within their role has direct and indirect impacts on their
effectiveness, persistence, and perceptions of success. (Bandura & Locke, 2003).
The interpretations of this research’s findings center around four interwoven constructs
informing instructional coaches’ enactment of instructional leadership. The following conceptual
model illustrates the relationships among these key constructs. Distributed leadership
infrastructure refers the structural conditions such as formal leadership routines and access to
decision-making that shape role clarity. Role clarity represents the instructional coaches’,
teachers’, and school leaders’ shared understanding of the instructional coaches’ professional
expectations and authority. Relational trust represents perceptions of credibility and respect
among coaches, principals, and teachers. Role clarity functions as a mediator and relational trust
functions as a moderator for self-efficacy for instructional leadership, defined as their belief in
their capability to effectively improve instruction.
Figure 1

136
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Conceptual Model of Relationships Between Distributed Leadership Infrastructure, Role Clarity,
Relational Trust, and Instructional Coaches’ Self-Efficacy

Role Clarity

Distributed
Leadership
Infrastructure

Self-Efficacy

Relational Trust
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings presented in this study provide key insights into the experiences of
instructional leadership for instructional coaches. These insights offer practical and policy
implications for district leaders, school administrators, and instructional coaches. Specifically,
major implications for policy include explicit guidance from district leaders about instructional
coaches’ professional duties and codifying distributed instructional leadership paradigms for
schools to include instructional coaches. Significant implications for practice may include the
development of an instructional coach mentorship program to support coaches in navigating
common, consequential difficulties in their work, such as how to produce and sustain large-scale
instructional improvement. These implications may support translating this research's findings
into actionable, real-world applications.
Implications for Policy
Both educational researchers (Brandmo et al., 2021; Comstock & Margolis, 2021; GaleyHorn & Woulfin, 2021; Munson & Saclarides, 2022) and participants in this study assert that

137
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional coaches’ roles and responsibilities are unclear. This lack of definition imposes
serious challenges for instructional coaches and has ramifications for the impact that
instructional coaches may be able to have in schools (Comstock & Margolis, 2021; Galey-Horn
& Woulfin, 2021). In this study in particular, instructional coach participants were limited in
their ability to be instructional leaders because school leaders did not know the extent of
instructional coaches’ capacity for instructional leadership and because school leaders tasked
instructional coaches with responsibilities outside of those assumed to be within the instructional
coaching role.
To clear up the confusion around instructional coaches’ roles and responsibilities, district
leaders from the school district represented in this study should clearly define the instructional
coach position. This definition should specifically outline the roles that instructional coaches
have. Notably, district leaders should clearly specify instructional coaches’ role as instructional
leaders within schools, not leaving this important distinction to interpretation. Such a job
description from district leaders should also clearly outline the responsibilities that instructional
coaches should have and the responsibilities that instructional coaches explicitly should not
have. For example, guidance from district leaders should detail whether school leaders are
allowed to use instructional coaches as assessment coordinators, substitute teachers,
interventionists, etc. and communicate this to school leaders, instructional coaches, and teachers.
Straightforward messaging about instructional coaches’ professional duties from district leaders
to other stakeholders can facilitate instructional coaches’ proper perception, optimize the use of
their time in job-related tasks, and consequently deepen their potential for impact.
Implicit in the standardization of instructional coaches’ roles and responsibilities is a
variety of natural tensions to be addressed. One such tension is the potential conflict between

138
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
standardization and responsiveness. Instructional coaching is by its very nature a deeply
relational practice that is inherently shaped by its context (Ippolito and Bean, 2019; Kho et al.,
2019; Knight, 2007). Standardization of the instructional coaching role requires uniform
prescriptions of behaviors, knowledge, and tasks for coaches. Thus, a tension around the role
clarity that standardization offers to instructional coaches and the situational responsiveness
required of instructional leadership arises. This role clarity may also conflict with the role
flexibility that instructional coaches’ experience as they occupy organizational hierarchies
between school leaders and teachers. While standardization of instructional coaches’
responsibilities can reduce ambiguity and maximize their use in instructional tasks, it can also
possibly limit how instructional coaches can respond to nuanced situations. For example,
clarifying that instructional coaches are not to serve as substitute teachers opens questions of
how instructional coaches can support in emergent situations of teachers’ absences.
Instructional coaches’ role clarity can indeed coexist with their role flexibility if their
standardization is not too rigid. The ultimate intent of standardizing instructional coaches’
responsibilities is to support their instructional leadership, and yet leadership is often dynamic
and fluid. As such, role clarification for instructional coaches should allow for adaptive
leadership behaviors, perhaps making distinctions between what instructional coaches cannot do
and what instructional coaches should engage in at the discretion of their school’s leaders. A
district mandate that standardizes instructional coaches’ roles may also offer alternative ways to
accomplish common tasks that are perceived as out of role for instructional coaches. Such
measures will provide role clarity for instructional coaches while also ensuring that their duties
are relevant and adapted to their specific context.

139
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
If district leaders demarcate instructional coaches as official instructional leaders, another
implication for district policy is designing distributed instructional leadership structures that
include instructional coaches. Effective distributed leadership models require that various
organizational, structural, and cultural conditions are in place to make it possible for leadership
to be shared across roles (Harris & Jones, 2024; Larsson & Löwstedt, 2020). These conditions
are essential when formal leadership is extended to groups of people who have historically not
held this leadership or have murky understandings of their leadership status (Harris, 2008). A
district policy to oversee the addition of a new group of staff members -such as instructional
coaches- to a school’s distributed leadership model would be advantageous to all stakeholders.
School district leaders would do well to detail the necessary conditions for embedding
instructional coaches in schools’ instructional leadership framework and offer guidance on how
these conditions are to be created. Access to decision-making authority is one of the conditions
needed for all educators under a distributed instructional leadership model, for instance
(Highlands & Woods, 2024). District leaders can ensure decision-making conditions support
instructional coaches’ inclusion by mandating that instructional coaches are part of decisionmaking teams for schools, such as instructional leadership teams and school steering committees.
Likewise, proper communication channels and sacred time to engage in instructional leadership
are two other conditions necessary for distributed instructional leadership. District leaders can
ensure that both instructional coaches and school leaders have protected time and forums for
collaboration, such as formal, regular school leader-instructional coach meetings with an agenda
set in part by district leaders.
Implications for Practice

140
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
In addition to policy implications, the findings from this study allude to implications for
practice in schools. The relationships that instructional coaches in this study formed with other
stakeholders were a means for the coaches to achieve their professional aims. Whereas
instructional coach participants created relationships with teachers and school administrators as
an implicit necessity of their job, instructional coaches intentionally built relationships with their
peers in a more auxiliary way, to learn from colleagues and enhance their own practice. While it
seems clear that establishing a formal peer mentoring program would be beneficial for
instructional coaches in this school district, it may also be advantageous for other districts and
school systems that employ instructional coaches.
A peer mentorship program for instructional coaches has a unique ability to leverage
instructional coaches’ experiences to deepen inexperienced coaches’ expertise. Participants in
this study detailed intentionally seeking out successful coaches and thought partnering with them
around challenging aspects of their role. Coach A succinctly describes this, stating “There is no
way I would be as successful as I am if I didn’t connect with other coaches to find out how they
do things.” Formalizing and standardizing these experiences align with situated learning,
wherein expertise develops through social practice rather than through formal training
alone (Anderson et al., 1996; Contu & Willmott, 2003). If school districts design opportunities
for instructional coaches to build learning relationships with other coaches, they may
consequently increase coaches’ self-efficacy through vicarious pathways (Bandura, 1977)
and ultimately lead to more instructional coaching success.
Additionally, a districtwide instructional coach peer mentoring program can support
efforts to standardize instructional coaches’ roles and responsibilities. As instructional coaches
consult with other instructional coaches for ways to address challenges in enacting their

141
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional leadership, an informal alignment of practices across instructional coaching
contexts may result. For example, instructional coaches may norm language to use when
prioritizing their time for instructional leadership tasks. These peer mentorship programs may
also support inexperienced coaches in skillfully navigating relationships with school leaders to
broaden their impact. In this way, an instructional coaching peer mentoring program can ensure
consistency in instructional coaching practices across the district.
Theoretical and Empirical Implications
This phenomenological study was grounded in Hallinger’s (2005) leadership theory to
examine how instructional coaches experience their instructional leadership and are perceived as
instructional leaders. Recent instructional leadership research has conceded that instructional
leadership is not vested in principals alone (Neumerski, 2013; Somoza-Norton & Neumann,
2021). Participants in this study acknowledge that instructional coaches function in some
instructional leadership capacities. The phenomenological framework for this study allowed for a
deeper exploration of the intersections of authority and relational influence in participants lived
experiences.
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory was a secondary grounding theory for this study, in order
to connect how the experiences and perceptions of instructional coaches’ instructional leadership
impacts and is impacted by their self-efficacy. Self-efficacy theory positions a person’s success
in a task as related to a person’s perception of his or her capacity to successfully complete the
task (Bandura, 1977). This phenomenological framework allowed for an in-depth examination of
how self-efficacy for instructional leadership influenced instructional coaches' experiences.
Theoretical Implications

142
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
When considered from a theoretical perspective, the findings of this study invite a
deeper probe into Hallinger’s (2005) instructional leadership theory, specifically its emphasis on
formal authority and hierarchical power. Participants’ experiences suggest that instructional
leadership is perceived as being explicitly tied to role-based, autonomous power to make
decisions; viewed from this lens, instructional coaches were not qualified as instructional leaders
by study participants. Instructional leadership research, however, does not name decision-making
authority as a prerequisite for instructional leadership; it instead emphasizes leadership that
supports the development of teaching and learning through three avenues: developing a shared
vision for student learning and instruction, managing instructional programming, and fostering
an effective instructional culture in a school (Hallinger, 2005). Considering this framing, study
participants consistently noted instructional coaches’ instructional leadership. These experiences
suggest that instructional leadership theory can be extended to include leadership that is
exercised through relational influence as opposed to purely positional authority.
Additionally, this study’s findings surface rich descriptions of the tensions instructional
coaches navigate as they enact endeavor to enact leadership. Without a clearly defined role that
establishes formal authority, participants in this research navigated instructional coaches’
professional identities and ensuing expectations. The current body of literature richly describes
how instructional coaches’ role ambiguity impedes their ability to carry out core responsibilities
(Kho, et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2019) but does not necessarily examine how it impacts their role
identities as instructional leaders. In this study, role ambiguity led to teachers, instructional
coaches, and school leaders questioning –in word or in action- instructional coaches’ claim to be
instructional leaders, with at least one coach expressly denying instructional coaches’ inherent

143
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional leadership. These findings allude to a need for instructional leadership theory to
investigate the impact of role ambiguity for mid-level leaders.
The findings of this study confirm Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory while
simultaneously surfacing areas for deeper theoretical examination. Specifically, participants’
experiences and perceptions confirm that efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy are two
distinct concepts that do not necessarily align with each other (Bandura, 1977; Bandura and
Locke, 2003). Although participants in this study strongly insinuated a belief the coaching can
lead to instructional improvements, participants had various beliefs about instructional coaches’
ability to successfully perform different coaching behaviors that would bring about said
instructional improvements. Several structural barriers were reported to impact coaches’ efficacy
expectancy, such as protected time to meet with stakeholders, time allocation for instructional
coaching, and access to formal power. Moreover, relationships and trust were mechanisms that
mediated self-efficacy for instructional leadership. These revelations suggest that a deeper
exploration of instructional coaches’ leadership experiences through a self-efficacy theory
framework could be warranted, specifically situating self-efficacy as not merely an individual
self-concept but instead within a context of infrastructure for leadership.
Finally, this study highlights a possible intersection on instructional leadership
theory with distributed leadership theory. As implied in the research of Dami et al. (2022),
McBrayer et al. (2018), Noor and Nawab (2022), and Shaked (2022), principals often do not
have the capacity to focus solely on instructional leadership or be the sole instructional leader in
a school. To carry out strong instructional leadership, it would behoove school principals to
extend instructional leadership to other top- and mid-level instructional personnel. Doing so,
however, would require a framework to effectively and efficiently delegate this leadership. This

144
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
issue of providing the needed structures that bestow instructional leadership to mid-level
instructional personnel like instructional coaches was elucidated in the findings. A distributed
leadership theory framework may have been another equally if not more effective framework to
ground this research. This suggests that research that specifically explores distributed
instructional leadership could enrich the body of knowledge for both separate theories.
Empirical Implications
As described earlier in this study, there is ample research on the topics of instructional
leadership and instructional coaching as separate topics, but a dearth of research that specifically
explores instructional coaches as instructional leaders. Empirically, this study advances the
conversation on instructional coaches’ instructional leadership, both giving contextualized
accounts of how teachers and instructional coaches define instructional leadership and extending
conceptions of instructional leadership to instructional coaches. In doing so, this study addressed
a gap in the literature that often posits instructional leadership within a researcher-driven
definition that focuses on role-related authority (Hallinger, 2005), extending ideologies like those
of Eadens and Ceballos (2023) that conceive of school leadership as existing on a continuum. A
phenomenological approach allowed this study to provide qualitative descriptions of
instructional coaching duties as aspects of instructional leadership in practice, particularly
documenting how relationships pave the way for impactful instructional coaching without the
use of formal authority. These in-depth descriptions are useful in exploring how middle-level
leaders can successfully navigate both their position and relationships with others to affect
change.
In this same vein, the findings of this study offer some confirmation of centrality of
relational trust to Spillane’s distributed leadership theory (2005). Distributed leadership theory

145
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
posits, in alignment with the experiences of participants in this study, that leadership as a
practice arises from the interactions of followers and leaders that emerge due to their
contextually-dependent expertise (Spillane, 2005). One of the salient themes of this study is that
relationships are vehicles for influence. Through various interactions with teachers and school
leaders, instructional coaches’ content expertise and professional development capacity are
discerned, supporting the impact that instructional coaches have to improve instruction in
schools. This relational influence is the mechanism through which instructional coaches enact
their instructional leadership. Future research can explicitly explore how relationships between
instructional coaches and other educational stakeholders serve as a mediator between
instructional coaching behaviors and improved instructional outcomes.
Additionally, findings from this study reveal that instructional leadership enactment by
instructional coaches is heavily impacted by leadership structures -or the lack thereof- embedded
in school contexts. Participants in this study described various structural barriers that impeded
their instructional leadership, such as time allocation, alignment with school administration,
access to instruction, and channels for communication. These findings suggest that coaches’
instructional leadership is perhaps mediated by the available infrastructure for instructional
leadership. Instructional leadership infrastructure in general, and distributed instructional
leadership infrastructure in particular, may have predictive power over the effectiveness and
extent of instructional leadership enactment. Consequently, the empirical focus of future studies
on instructional coaches’ instructional leadership may do well to shift from individual coaches'
experiences, competence, and self-efficacy to the organizational ecology in which leadership is
enacted.

146
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Finally, and perhaps most plainly, the findings from this study offer an experiential
credence to the vast body of research detailing the value that instructional coaches add to school
systems (Anderson and Wallin, 2018; Hashim, 2020; Ippolito & Bean, 2019; Kho et al., 2019;
Knight, 2019). Instructional coach participants' simultaneous success with individual
instructional impact and difficulty creating broad-level impact suggests that grounding their
influence in a more formal authority may increase their impact. Thus, in exploring the limits of
this relational influence, this research also offers a foundation for future investigations of
instructional coaching as a formal leadership practice. Prospective research on how instructional
coaching roles are designed, supported, and evaluated for instructional leadership may
be appropriate.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The scope and overall generalizability of this research may be tempered by several
inherent limitations. One limitation of this study is the location of the participant pool from
which data was obtained. Participants in this study were limited to one large, urban public school
district in the northeastern region of the country. Such contextual specificity of this research
inherently limits the transferability of findings. The leadership hierarchies and governance
models in a large, urban school district may likely differ from those in smaller or more suburban
and rural district. Likewise, regional sociocultural and political norms likely influence
interpretations of instructional leadership; these are context-bound and do not necessarily
transfer to other settings. Furthermore, public schools all over the country employ instructional
coaches, with one recent study citing that over half of all the nation’s public schools have at least
one instructional coach (Ng, 2024). The lack of standardization in instructional coach

147
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
preparation, prerequisites, or responsibilities implies that instructional coaches in different
contexts may have different experiences in their role (Ng, 2024). While there are commonalities
among instructional coaches nationwide, many aspects of instructional coaching are colored by
the nuances of their specific contexts. Phenomenological research endeavors to explore and
describe the lived experiences of a phenomenon within a particular context. Consequently,
expanding the geographical pool of participants for this phenomenological research may have
yielded different experiences, perceptions, and overall findings.
The participant pool for this research presented another limitation to this study. Data from
this study was obtained from interviews with instructional coaches and teachers who work with
instructional coaches, as these two groups of educators were deemed to have the most intimate
experiences with and perceptions of instructional coaching. There are, however, other
educational stakeholders who work in close enough proximity to instructional coaches to offer
meaningful considerations for this study. For instance, school administrators could have been
included as participants in this study, as both their role as top instructional leaders and the
prominent role that participants believe they played in instructional coaches’ experiences would
have possibly imparted keen observations for this study. Additionally, teachers who do not
receive instructional coaching but work tangentially to instructional coaches -such as teachers
who work in the same grade or department as coached teachers- may also have valuable insights
as to how instructional coaches are perceived.
Interestingly, the participant sample was unintentionally limited by gender. While both
male and female teachers were represented in the teacher participant sample, all the instructional
coaches that were interviewed for this study were females. This was not deliberate; gender was
not a factor in the recruitment for instructional coach participants, nor were participants screened

148
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
for their gender. Historically, studies have concluded that males and females experience
leadership in general (Jong, 2023; Kim et. Al., 2020; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014) and
instructional leadership in particular (Hallinger et al., 2016; Sanchez & Thornton, 2010; Shaked
et al., 2018) differently. As such, it is possible that gender may influence an instructional
coach’s experience of instructional leadership or how they are perceived as instructional leaders.
The phenomenological research design of this study itself might be considered a
limitation. Phenomenological studies are typically relatively small and purposive in their
sampling, focusing on participants who have experienced a particular phenomenon (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Because they are so bound to the context of the experience being studied,
phenomenological studies may be imbued with transferability but lack scientific generalizability
to population at large. Additionally, there is an inherent degree of subjectivity embedded in
phenomenological research. Subjectivity may occur within two avenues: the participants or the
researcher. Phenomenological research relies on the in-depth interviews of participants; this
reliance may be impacted by various participant biases. For instance, as in common in research
that used self-reported data, participants in this study may have been impacted by recall bias and
incorrectly remembered or reported various anecdotes, experiences, or behaviors. Similarly,
social desirability bias may have impacted participant responses due to the group setting of the
teacher data collection process or the desire of instructional coaches to present a positive selfimage and avoid negative judgment. Data from these interviews is then interpreted by the
researcher. Even though this study used a hermeneutic phenomenology framework in which the
researcher attempted to bracket her experiences, a complete suspension of researcher bias
is impossible.

149
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Lastly and of considerable note, researcher positionality may be a limitation for this
study. Specifically, the researcher for this phenomenological study exploring the instructional
coaches’ experiences and perceptions of leadership is herself an instructional coach who has had
various experiences of instructional leadership in that role. This researcher espouses core beliefs
that instructional coaches should formally engage in instructional leadership capacities and that
top-level school leaders must play a leading role in establishing a vision, defining the culture,
implementing changes in a school setting, and supporting the instructional leadership of others.
With this experience and these beliefs, it is possible that the understandings the researcher came
into this research with may have influenced which participant responses were probed, which
themes became salient, and even interpreted ambiguity in responses that should have been
clarified by participants. Additionally, this researcher is a friend to two instructional coach
participants and collegially known to several other instructional coach participants. Despite all
best efforts to explore implicit assumptions, the researcher may have limited the depth of data
collection during interviews due to assumed mutual understanding. A study of the same topic by
a researcher who does not have experience as an instructional coach, teacher, or school leader
may not experience these limitations.
Delimitations
To ensure focus and feasibility, this study was designed with specific, purposeful
delimitations. One such delimitation was selecting participants from a purposive sampling pool
in which participants had a certain amount of professional experience. The experience
requirements were intended to ensure participants’ reasonable familiarity with the concepts in the
study. Instructional coach participants were required to have at least two years of experience in
coaching. This minimum amount of experience would allow for instructional coach participants

150
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
to have had enough personal experiences in the role as well as collaborations with other coaches
to have a nuanced understanding of the instructional coaching role and its intersection with
instructional leadership. Because instructional coaching is often vaguely defined, it would not
have been prudent to include first-year instructional coaches who may have been grappling to
make meaning of their new role.
Similarly, teacher participants were required to have at least six months of coaching
collaboration outside of the mandatory first year of coaching that all teachers in this district
receive. This prerequisite was a delimitation to support teacher participants in both having
enough teaching experience to have an informed opinion about instructional leadership and
having enough instructional coaching experience to reflect on how instructional coaching and
instructional leadership converge or relate. Narrowing the participant pool in the manners
described above prioritizes depth of experience over breadth of experiences, a central tenet of
phenomenology that has the potential to increase the homogeneity of studied experience.
Another delimitation strategy was that the only prerequisite placed on teachers was their
experience, for the reasons listed above. Once the experience prerequisites were met, all
participants were eligible for participation in the study. This allowed for as diverse a sample of
participants as possible, to ensure that there were a variety of backgrounds, grade-levels, subject
areas, and schools represented in the data. This diversity aimed to maximize the transferability of
the study.
A final delimitation strategy of this study was allowing participants to define instructional
leadership and use their definition in all their pursuant reflections while having the researcher
analyze the data through the lens of Hallinger’s (2005) instructional leadership theory.
Phenomenological research centers on understanding an experience and how participants make

151
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
meaning of that experience. In keeping with this tradition, this study quite literally asked
participants to “make meaning” of a key concept in the study. This allowed the researcher to
provide a deeply context-specific analysis of data that phenomenology strives for while
simultaneously interpreting findings through a common and conventionally accepted lens.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings, limitations, and delimitations of this research make a compelling case for
several recommendations for future research. The first and perhaps most obvious of these
recommendations is to broaden the participant pool from this study in terms of the geographic
location of participants and the educational role held by participants. Geographically diversifying
the participant pool from one school district in one area of country to districts across the nation
will intrinsically enhance the transferability of the study. At the same time, it may reduce certain
unintentional location-based biases that may show up in the data, such as overrepresentation of
certain cultural and socioeconomic norms that are deeply influenced by location. Lastly, the
introduction of a geographically diverse participant pool may permit educational policy
and structural variability -which are both heavily influenced by the local regulations-to be
reflected in the findings.
Including participants with a variety of educational positions is another recommendation
for future research. School leaders such as principals and assistant principals are natural choices
for new studies about instructional coaches’ instructional leadership. Because these school
leaders typically hold instructional leadership positions in their schools, they may offer
compelling opinions about how instructional coaches function as instructional leaders. The
inclusion of school leaders may also provide a complementary perspective on the relationship
between instructional coaches and school leaders, which emerged as part of a salient theme

152
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
within this research. Teachers who do not work directly with instructional coaches could also
make prudent choices for participants in a similar study. Because instructional coaches in this
study voiced a strong desired to broaden their impact beyond the instruction of the teachers they
coach, collecting data about perceptions of instructional coaches from teachers who do not work
directly with instructional coaches could reveal pertinent findings on this topic.
In addition to adding different types of participants, it could also be enlightening to solicit
participants' perspectives on additional concepts brought forward in this study. One such concept
is how participants perceive and experience the instructional leadership of their school leaders,
particularly in comparison to their instructional coaches. Participants in this study consistently
named instructional coaches’ lack of autonomous decision-making ability and power-based
influence as the things that hindered them from being perceived instructional leaders.
Presumably, principals and assistant principals have this ability and influence; yet participants in
this study were not asked to reflect on their school leaders’ instructional leadership. Asking
participants to reflect on school leaders' instructional leadership could provide a contrast to their
reflections on instructional coaches’ instructional leadership while deepening the understanding
of the nuances educators consider as they make contextualized meaning of instructional
leadership.
Grounding future research on instructional coaches’ instructional leadership in a different
theoretical framework, particularly Spillane’s (2005) distributed leadership theory, is a worthy
recommendation. This study used instructional leadership theory as its basis, examining how
participants made meaning of and enacted instructional leadership. Although participants did not
actively define instructional coaches as instructional leaders, they cited numerous examples of
instructional coaches engaging the tasks that fall within Hallinger’s (2005) conception of

153
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
instructional leadership. Significant revelations could be uncovered in a study that assumes
instructional coaches’ instructional leadership and examines the specific structures and
conditions in which instructional leadership is bestowed upon coaches.
Finally, future exploration of the nexus of instructional coaching and instructional
leadership through the use of a different research methodology is strongly encouraged. While
phenomenology provided insight into instructional coaches’ lived experiences of instructional
leadership, future research could employ a case study design to examine how instructional
leadership is enacted within a specific, bounded school context. Such an approach might capture
how context-dependent variables including school culture, administrative structures, historical
context, and local policy impact instructional coaches’ instructional leadership. Additionally, this
change in methodology permits data sources such as observations and artifact analysis in
addition to the interviews and focus groups used in phenomenological studies (Patton,
2014; Stahl & King, 2020). These additional data sources would allow for a greater triangulation
of data, which may strengthen the credibility, dependability, and overall contextual richness of
the research (Greenhalgh, 2025).
Conclusion
As the responsibilities of school administrators across the country continue to increase
and inadvertently limit their instructional leadership, school systems are progressively turning to
instructional coaches to support schools’ mission. Instructional coaches are well-suited for
instructional leadership in many ways, including their extensive content knowledge, skill in
relationship building, and positions within schools’ organizational hierarchy. Some practices and
conditions in schools preclude their instructional leadership, such as poorly defined roles, misuse

154
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
of time, lack of distributive leadership infrastructure, and inadequate training for instructional
leadership.
This phenomenological research sought to understand the experiences and perceptions of
instructional coaches’ instructional leadership in a large, urban, northeastern city. Key findings
from this study highlight that although instructional coaches are able to impact instruction on an
individual level, they face significant challenges impacting instruction on a broad level and do
not have decision-making authority; thus, they are not generally perceived as instructional
leaders by themselves or by the teachers they coach. While a possible interpretation of these
findings is that instructional coaches are not intended to be instructional leaders, other
interpretations situate instructional coaches’ instructional leadership as being constrained by lack
of professional definition, impacted by feelings of self-efficacy, and dependent upon intentional
and strategic relationship building with various stakeholders. Implications of these findings
include that standardization of instructional coaching responsibilities may lead to
stronger perceptions and experiences of instructional leadership and the need for distributed
instructional leadership infrastructure to be built for instructional coaches in this school district.
In consideration of the many limitations and delimitations imbued in this study, there
are numerous opportunities for future research.

155
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
References
Aguilar, E. (2024). How to coach toward agency. Educational Leadership, 81(8).
Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational
Researcher, 25(4), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004005.
Anderson, V., & Wallin, P. (2018). Instructional coaching: Enhancing instructional leadership in
schools. National Teacher Education Journal, 11(2), 53-67.
Atkins, L., & Wallace, S. (2015). Qualitative research in education. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957602.
Baker, R. & Shower, B. (1984). The effects of a coaching strategy on teachers' transfer of
training to classroom practice: A six-month follow-up study [Paper presentation]. Annual
American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA
Bambrick-Santoyo, P., & Saphier, J. (2016). Get better faster: A 90-day plan for developing new
teachers (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. American
Psychological Association, 88(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Bozkurt, S., Çoban, Ö., Özdemir, M., & Özdemir, N. (2021). How leadership, school culture,
collective efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and socioeconomic status affect student
achievement. Egitim ve Bilim, 46(207), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9338.

156
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Brandmo, C., Aas, M., Colbjornsen, T., & Olsen, R. (2021). Group coaching that promotes selfefficacy and role clarity among school leaders. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 65(2), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1659406.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Volume 2
research designs. American Psychology of Association.
Brazer, S. D., & Bauer, S. C. (2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 645-684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13478977.
Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. How to use and assess qualitative research
methods. Neurological Research and Practice, (2)14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466020-00059-z.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study
at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
Cardenas, K; Talos, J., & Barton, T. (2024, January 11). Beyond the bowl of chocolates: How to
build trust in instructional coaching relationships. Northwest Evaluation Association.
https://www.nwea.org/blog/2024/beyond-the-bowl-of-chocolates-how-to-build-trust-ininstructional-coaching-relationships/.
Ciccone, J. (2024, September 16). Declining student achievement: Is school leadership the key?
Ohio State University College of Education and Human Ecology.
https://ehe.osu.edu/news/listing/declining-student-achievement-school-leadership-key
Claxton, B., & Dolan, C. (2022). A step-by-step guide to writing a literature review for doctoral
research. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

157
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Comstock, M., & Margolis, J. (2021). “Tearing down the wall”: Making sense of teacher leaders
as instructional coaches and evaluators. Journal of School Leadership, 31(4), 297-317.
https://doi.org/10.1.1177/1052684620969932.
Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power
relations in situated learning theory. Organization Science, 14, 283-297.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167.
Cox, J., & Mullen, C. (2023). Impacting student achievement: Principals’ instructional
leadership practice in two Title I rural schools. Journal of School Leadership, 33(1), 325. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221133996.
Cunningham, K., & Lochmiller, C. (2020). Content-specific leadership: Identifying literaturebased implications for principal preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 15(4), 261-282.
Dami, Z., Wiyono, B., Imron, A., Burhanuddin, B., Supriyanto, A., & Daliman, M. (2022).
Principal self-efficacy for instructional leadership to the perspective of principal
strengthening training: Work engagement, job satisfaction, and motivation to leave.
Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2064407.
Damore, S., & Rieckhoff, B. (2021). School leader perceptions: Coaching tool and process.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(1), 57-80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119868258.
Dasci Sonmez, E., Cemaloglu, N., & Kahraman, G. (2024). Teachers’ professional learning: Do
instructional leadership and teacher leadership make a difference in Turkiye? Educational
Management, Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241280124

158
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and
its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 19(2), 150–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802463296.
De Simone, J. J. (2020). The roles of collaborative professional development, self-efficacy, and
positive affect in encouraging educator data use to aid student learning. Teacher
Development, 24(4), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1780302.
Devine, M., Houssemand, C., & Meyers, R. (2013). Instructional coaching for teachers: A
strategy to implement new practices in the classrooms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 93, 1126-1130.
Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. (2022). Learning loss during Covid-19: An early systematic
review. Prospects, 51(4), 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09582-6.
Drisko, J. (2024). Transferability and generalization in qualitative research. Research on Social
Work Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241256560.
Eadens, D., & Ceballos, M. (2023). Educational leadership preparation and professional roles:
Are we serving the needs of leadership roles along the leadership continuum? Journal of
Research on Leadership Education, 18(2), 277-300.
https://doi.org/10.1177/194277551221076416.
Eddies-Hirsch, K. (2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of
Advanced Research, 3(8), 251-260.
Ehrich, L. C., & English, F. W. (2012). What can grassroots leadership teach us about
school leadership? Halduskultuur –Administrative Culture, 13(2), 85-108.
Elfira, R., Fitrawati, Jasman, M. W., Reski, K., Anwar, A., & Enaldi. (2024). How does
principal’s instructional leadership shape teacher performance mediated by teacher self-

159
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
efficacy in Indonesian education context? Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1401394.
Etxebarria, N., Fernandez, I., Lipnicki, D., Mondragon, N., & Santabárbara, J. (2023).
Prevalence of burnout among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A metaanalysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6),
4866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064866.
Fuentes, S., & Jimerson, J. (2019). Tackling instructional mismatch: Targeted, intentional
learning can build leaders’ content knowledge. The Learning Professional, 40(5), 32.
Gale, J., Alemdar, M., Cappelli, C., & Morris, D. (2021). A mixed-methods study of selfefficacy, the sources of self-efficacy, and teaching experience. Frontier in Education, 6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.750599.
Galey-Horn, S., & Woulfin, S. (2021). Muddy waters: The micropolitics of instructional
coaches’ work in evaluation. American Journal of Education, 127(3), 441-470.
https://doi.org/10.1086/713827.
Glendinning, S. (2007). What is phenomenology. Philosophy Compass, 3(1), 30-50.
https://doi.org/10.111/j.1747-9991.2007.00113.x.
Glover, T., Reddy, L., & Crouse, K. (2023). Instructional coaching actions that predict teacher
classroom practices and student achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 96, 1-11.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., Bailes, L. P., & Nichols, R. (2019). From school leadership to
differentiated instruction: A pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 120(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/705827.
Goddard, R., Bailes, L., & Minjung, K. (2021). Principal efficacy beliefs for instructional
leadership and their relation to teachers’ sense of collective efficacy and student

160
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(3), 472-493.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1696369.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in
dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues
Journal, 4(9), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9.
Greenhalgh T. (2025). Case studies: A guide for researchers, educators, and
implementers. BMJ Medicine, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2025-001623.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Gulmez, D., & Isik, A.N. (2020). The correlation between school principals’ self-efficacy beliefs
and leadership styles. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(1), 326329. https://www.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2020.01.020.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional
to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3).
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210014306.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793.
Hallinger, P. (2015). The evolution of instructional leadership. Springer Press.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student
achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 498-518.

161
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Hallinger, P., Dongyu, L., & Wang, W. (2016). Gender differences in instructional leadership: A
meta-analytic review of studies using the principal instructional management rating
scale. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 567-601.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality,
collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 6(3), 227-241.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2024). Distributed leadership and professional collaboration: Evidence
from global school systems. International Journal of Leadership in Education.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253.
Hashim, A. (2020). Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership
practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1-44.
https://doi.org/10.177/0161468120122010.
Hayward, C., & Ohlson, M. (2023). Teachers’ perspectives on teacher self-efficacy and principal
leadership characteristics. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership,
19(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2023v19n2a1291.
Highland, C., & Woods, R. (2024). Recent middle leadership research in secondary schools in
New Zealand: 2015-2022. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 59, 93-108.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-023-00304-4.
Hussain, S., & Khan, S. A. (2022). Self-efficacy of teachers: A review of literature. Multidisciplinary Research Journal,1(50), 110-116.

162
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Ippolito, J., & Bean, R. M. (2019). A principal’s guide to supporting instructional coaching.
Educational Leadership, 77(3), 68-73.
Jimerson, J., & Quebec-Fuentes, S. (2021). Approaches to instructional leadership:
Organizational influences in contexts of (mis)match. Journal of School Leadership,
31(4), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620980359.
Jong, J. (2023). The role of leader and subordinate gender in the leadership-empowerment
relationship. Public Personnel Management, 52(3), 317-343.
.https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231157344.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving in-service training: The messages of research.
Educational Leadership 37 (5), 379-385.
Kane, B., & Rosenquist, B. (2019). Relationships between instructional coaches’ time use and
district- and school-level policies and expectations. American Educational Research
Journal, 56(5), 1718-1768. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219826580.
Khan, M. J., & Ahmed, J. (2021). Child education in the time of pandemic: Learning loss and
dropout. Children and Youth Services Review (127), 106065.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106065.
Khan, Z., Khan, U. A., Shah, R. U., & Iqbal, J. (2009). Instructional leadership, supervision, and
teacher development. Dialogue, 4(4), 580-592.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2017). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based
coaches (2nd. ed.). Learning Forward.

163
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Kim, J., Hsu, N., Newman, D., Harms, P., & Wood, D. (2020). Leadership perceptions, gender,
and dominant personality: The role of normality evaluations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103984.
Kho, S., Saeed, K., & Mohamed, A. (2019). Instructional coaching as a tool for professional
development: Coaches’ roles and considerations. Qualitative Report, 24(5), 1106-1130.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3774.
Kho, S., Khemanuwong, T., & Mohamed Ismail, S. (2020). Keeping teachers afloat with
instructional coaching: Coaching structure and implementation. Qualitative
Report, 25(7), COV1. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4343.
Knight, D. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance.
(38)1. 52-80. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2012.0010.
Knight, J. (2017). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful
improvements in teaching. Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (2019). Instructional coaching for implementing visible learning: A model for
translating research into practice. Education Sciences, (9)2, 101.
Knight, J. (2021). The Definitive Guide to Instructional Coaching: Seven Factors for Success.
ASCD.
Knight, D., & Skrtic, T. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of instructional coaching: Implementing a
design-based, continuous improvement model to advance teacher professional
development. Journal of School Leadership, 31(4), 318–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620972048.
Knott, E., Rao, A., Summers, K., & Teeger, C. (2022). Interviews in social sciences. Nature
Reviews Methods Primer, (2)73, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6.

164
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in
adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Elsevier.
Kraft, M., & Blazar, D. (2018). Taking teacher coaching to scale: Can personalized training
become standard practice? Education Next, 18(4), 68-74.
Kraft, M., & Gilmour, A. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A
case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16653445.
L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching?
Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading
Teacher, 63(7), 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.2.
Larsson, P., & Löwstedt, J. (2020). Distributed school leadership: Making sense of the
educational infrastructure. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 51(1), 138-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220973668.
Lee, C. (2012). Reconsidering constructivism in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 44(4), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00720.x.
Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program
improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
Lewis, M. (2019). Administrators’ instructional leadership perspective of the role of instructional
coaches and teacher librarians: A comparative examination. School Libraries Worldwide,
25(2), 16-31. https://doi.org/10/29173/slw8240.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.

165
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2023). School middle leadership: A systematic
review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220983328.
Loucks‐Horsley, S. (1995). Professional development and the learner centered school. Theory
Into Practice, 34(4), 265-271.
Lozano, R. (2024). Educational leadership matters: Educational leadership preparation matters
too. Education in Developing, Emerging, and Developed Worlds: Common Challenges.
BCES Conference Books. 107-112.
MacKinnon, G., Young, D., Paish, S., & LeBel, S. (2019). Preparing instructional leaders:
Evaluating a regional program to gauge perceived effectiveness. International Journal of
Educational Policy and Leadership, 14(1).
https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2019v14n1a866.
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet,
358, 483-488.
Marsh, J. A., Bertrand, M., & Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The
mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College
Record (1970), 117(4), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700411.
Matta, C. (2021). Philosophical paradigms in qualitative research methods education: What is
their pedagogical role? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 1049–
1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1958372.
McBrayer, J., Jackson, T., Pannell, S., Sorgen, C., Gutierrez, A., & Melton, T. (2018). Balance
of instructional and managerial tasks as it relates to school leaders’ self-efficacy. Journal
of School Leadership, 28, 596-617.

166
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications.
Miller, R., Wargo, E., & Hoke, I. (2019). Instructional coaching: Navigating the complexities of
leadership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 22(3), 16-27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458919848134.
Moche, R. (2000). Coaching teachers’ thinking. Journal of Jewish Education, 66(3), 19-29.
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147-149.
Munson, J. & Saclarides, E. (2022). Getting a foot in the door: Examining content-focused
coaches’ strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 123(1),
128-154. https://doi.org/10.1086/720626.
Murphy J., Neumerski C. M., Goldring E., Grissom J., Porter A. (2016). Bottling fog? The quest
for instructional management. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 455–471.
Neumerski, C. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coaching instructional leadership and where should we go from
here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12456700.

Ng, A. (2024, April 3). How common are instructional coaches in schools? EdWeek.
https://marketbrief.edweek.org/meeting-district-needs/how-common-are-instructionalcoaches-in-schools/2024/04.
Noor, T. & Nawab, A. (2022). Are school leaders working as instructional leaders? Exploration
of school leadership practices in rural Pakistan. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2109315,
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2109315.
Özdemir, N. (2020). How to improve teachers’ instructional practices: The role of professional
learning activities, classroom observation and leadership content knowledge in

167
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(6), 585–603.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2019-0189.
Pallas, A. (2023). The rhetoric of teacher evaluation: New York City teachers’ responses to
performance labels. Educational Policy, 37(3), 769-799.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211049432.
Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th edition). Sage Publications.
Paustian-Underdahl, S., Walker, L., & Woehr, D. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership
effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(6), 1129–1145.
Perret, K. (2023). To avoid overload, establish priorities and focus on your goals. The Learning
Professional, 44(4), 12–13.
Pietsch, M., Aydin, B., & Gümüş, S. (2023). Putting the instructional leadership–student
achievement relation in context: A meta-analytical big data study across cultures and
time. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231197434.
Psencik, K., Mitrani, V., & Coleman, R. (2019). The power of coaching. The Learning
Professional, 40(6), 54–57.
Ratten V. (2023). The post COVID-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and learning methods
for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2),
100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100777.
Ravitch, D. (1990, January 10). Education in the 1980s: A concern for ‘quality’. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/opinion-education-in-the-1980s-aconcern-for-quality/1990/01.

168
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Reddy, L., Shernoff, E., & Lekwa, A. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of instructional
coaching in high-poverty urban schools: Examining teacher practices and student
outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 151-168.
Reid, D. (2019). How school principals enable instructional coaches: Evidence from New Jersey.
Education Leadership Review, 20(1), 87-100.
Rousmaniere, K. (2007). Go to the principal’s office: Toward a social history of the school
principal in North America. History of Education Quarterly, 47(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5959.2007.00072.
Saclarides, E., & Munson, J. (2024). Forces that shape coaches’ classroom access. The Learning
Professional, 45(4), 68–71.
Sanchez, J., & Watson, J. (2021). Effective instructional leadership practices in high performing
elementary schools. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 6(2),
60-70.
Sanchez, J. E., & Thornton, B. (2010). Gender issues in K-12 educational leadership. Advancing
Women in Leadership Journal, 30(13), 2-15.
Schwartz, S. (2024, December 4). ‘Sharp, steep declines’: U.S. students are falling behind in
math and science. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/sharp-steepdeclines-u-s-students-are-falling-behind-in-math-and-science/2024/12.
Schwartz, S. (2025, January 29). Reading scores fall to new low on NAEP, fueled by declines for
struggling students. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/reading-scoresfall-to-new-low-on-naep-fueled-by-declines-for-struggling-students/2025/01
Shaked, H. (2022). Role identity of instructional leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
21(2), 398-411. https://doi.org/10.108-/15700763.2020.1770805.

169
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Shaked, H. (2023). Perceptions of Israeli school principals regarding the knowledge needed for
instructional leadership. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership,
51(3), 655-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211006092.
Shaked, H. (2024). How principals’ instructional leadership impacts schools’ middle leadership.
Educational Management and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241238888.
Shaked, H., Glanz, J., & Gross, Z. (2018): Gender differences in instructional leadership: How
male and female principals perform their instructional leadership role. School Leadership
& Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1427569.
Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Journal for Education,
163(2), 163-172.
Showers, B. (1987). The role of coaching in the implementation of innovations. Teacher
Partnerships, 14(3), 59-70.
Skaalvik, C. (2020). School principal self-efficacy for instructional leadership: Relations with
engagement, emotional exhaustion and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of
Education, 23(2), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09544-4.
Smith, J., Harre, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1995). Rethinking methods in psychology. Sage
Publications.
Somona-Norton, A., & Neumann, N. (2021). The assistant principal as instructional leader: The
redesign of the AP position in the 21st century. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v6i1.2444.
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed Leadership. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

170
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Stahl, N., & King, J. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using
trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 2628.
Stewart, D. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage Publishing.
Stolz, S. A. (2022). The practice of phenomenology in educational research. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 55(7), 822–834.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2138745.
Sundler, A., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmer, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic analysis based
on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6, 733-739.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.275.
Sutton, A., & Crobach, C. (2022). Improving self-awareness and engagement through group
coaching. International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 20(1), 35–
49.
Tang, J., Bryant, D.A., & Walker, A. D. (2022). School middle leaders as instructional leaders:
Building the knowledge base of instruction-oriented middle leadership. Journal of
Educational Administration, 60(5), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2022-0018.
Tamari, G. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and its role in increasing motivation. GSEJ: Education
Science and Psychology, 62(1), 63-67.
Tremont, J., & Templeton, N. (2019). Principals as instructional leaders: An embedded
descriptive case study of one rural school’s effort to improve student outcomes through
reading plus. School Leadership Review, 14(2), 1-24.
Voelkel, R., Fiori, C., & Van Tassell, F. (2023). District leadership in redefining roles of
instructional coaches to guide professional learning communities through systemic

171
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
change. Leadership and Policy in Schools 22(1), 141-160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917622.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wallin, D. (2019). “I’m not where I want to be”: Teaching principals’ instructional leadership
practices. The Rural Educator, 40(2), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i2.777.
Wang, L. (2022). Exploring the relationship among teacher emotional intelligence, work
engagement, teacher self-efficacy, and student academic achievement: A moderated
mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810559
Warnock, J. M., Gibson-Sweet, M., & Van Nieuwerburgh, C. J. (2022). The perceived benefits
of instructional coaching for teachers. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching
in Education, 11(3), 328-348.
Williams, A., & Katz, L. (2001). The use of focus group methodology in education: Some
theoretical and practical considerations. International Electronic Journal for Leadership
in Learning, 5(3).
Woodward, L., & Thoma, J. (2021). Perspectives on literacy coaching: Defining roles and
expectations. Teacher Development, 24(1), 68-84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917622.
Woulfin, S., Desimone, L., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2023) Designing instructional coaching:
Suggestions for supporting teachers’ professional learning for the 21st century. American
Association of School Administrators Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 20(3), 7.

172
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Yanto, E., & Ramdani, J. (2023). Engaging students in qualitative research practice and
understanding through constructionist perspectives: Socially constructed qualitative
research pedagogies. The Qualitative Report, 28(7), 2156-2171.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6530.
Zhao, Y., & Watterston, J. (2021). The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of
Educational Change (22), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3.

173
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix A
IRB Approval Letter

174
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix B
Recruitment Emails
Instructional Coach Email: Interview
Subject Line: Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large, Urban City
Body Text:
Hello,
I am seeking participants for research study that is being conducted through Slippery Rock University
about the experiences and perceptions of instructional coaches in a large, urban city. The research study is
for instructional coaches in the School District of Philadelphia with at least 5 years of teaching experience
and 3 years of instructional coaching experience.
The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership for
instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. If you choose to participate, you will be asked
to engage in a Zoom interview and answer a set of 20 questions about your experiences and perceptions
of instructional leadership as an instructional coach. This will take approximately 60-90 minutes.
If you meet these requirements and are interested in participating, please respond to this email or contact
Sadiyah Lewis-El at SXL1054@sru.edu for more information or to schedule an interview time.
Thank you again for considering this research opportunity.

Sincerely,
Sadiyah Lewis-El, M.Ed.
Doctoral Candidate – Slippery Rock University

175
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix B
Recruitment Emails
Teacher Email: Focus Groups
Subject Line: Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large, Urban City
Body Text:
Hello,
I am seeking participants for research study that is being conducted through Slippery Rock University
about the experiences and perceptions of instructional coaches in a large, urban city. The research study is
for teachers who collaborate with instructional coaches in the School District of Philadelphia. Teachers
who will be considered for this study will have at least 2 years of teaching experience and 6 months of
experiences working with an instructional coach beyond your mandatory first year of coaching.
The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership for
instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. If you choose to participate, you will be asked
to engage in a Zoom focus group interview with other teachers and answer a set of 10 questions about
your experiences and perceptions of your instructional coach’s instructional leadership. This will take
approximately 60 minutes.
If you meet these requirements and are interested in participating, please respond to this email or contact
Sadiyah Lewis-El at SXL1054@sru.edu for more information or to schedule an interview time.
Thank you again for considering this research opportunity.

Sincerely,
Sadiyah Lewis-El, M.Ed.
Doctoral Candidate – Slippery Rock University

176
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix C
Instructional Coach Informed Consent Form

__________________________________________________________________________________
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large, Urban City: A Phenomenological
Study
Mark Hogue, PhD.
Mark.hogue@sru.edu
Phone: 724-738-4265
Sadiyah Lewis-El, M.Ed.
sxl1054@sru.edu
Phone: 267-432-2273
Invitation to be Part of a Research Study
You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be an instructional
coach with at least five years of experience teaching and two years of experience as an instructional
coach. The study is for research purposes only and taking part in this research project is voluntary.
Important Information about the Research Study
Things you should know:
● The purpose of the study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional
leadership for instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. If you choose to
participate, you will be asked to engage in an online Zoom interview and answer a list of
questions regarding your experiences and perceptions on instructional leadership as an
instructional coach. This will take approximately 60-90 minutes.
● Risks or discomforts from this research include a potential risk of a breach of confidentiality. All
participating schools and school personnel will be assigned pseudonyms for the data collection
and analyzation process to protect their confidentiality.
● The study will have no direct benefit to you as a participant but will contribute to the ongoing
knowledge in the field of instructional coaching and instructional leadership.
● Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to participate, and you can stop
at any time.
Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this
research project.
Page 1 of 3
________ Initials

177
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
What is the Study About and Why are We Doing it?
The purpose of the study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership
for instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. A dearth of instructional leadership
research that explores instructional coaches in instructional leadership roles. There is a need to focus on
the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership held by instructional coaches.
What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study?
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to answer a set of questions regarding your
experiences and opinions of your instructional leadership as an instructional coach. I expect this to take
about 60-90 minutes. The researcher will send a copy of the interview transcript to you for your review
after the interview has been completed. This process will allow you to review and verify that all
responses to the interview questions were accurate.
How Could You Benefit From This Study?
Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because it allows
educators to better understand how instructional leadership is enacted by instructional coaches.
What Risks Might Result From Being in This Study?
Although all identifying information will be kept private, there is a minimal risk that the participants may
be identified (breach of confidentiality).
How Will We Protect Your Information?
I plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, I will not include information that
could directly identify you.
I will protect the confidentiality of your research records by utilizing pseudonyms throughout the entire
data collection and analyzation process. Your name and any other information that can directly identify
you will be stored separately from the data collected as part of the study and password protected.
What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over?
I will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Your name and other
information that can directly identify you will be kept secure and stored separately from the research
data collected as part of the study and password protected.
What Other Choices do I Have if I Don’t Take Part in this Study?
If you choose not to participate, there are no alternatives.

Page 2 of 3
________ Initials

178
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES

Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary
The decision to participate in this study is yours and yours alone. Participating in this study is voluntary.
Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You do
not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. If you decide to withdraw before this
study is completed, your data will be destroyed and not included in the final study analysis.
Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Sadiyah Lewis-El M.Ed., sxl1054@sru.edu or
the dissertation chair, Dr. Mark Hogue PhD., mark.hogue@sru.edu.
Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask
questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please
contact the following:
Institutional Review Board
Slippery Rock University
104 Maltby, Suite 302
Slippery Rock, PA 16057
Phone: (724)738-4846
Email: irb@sru.edu

Page 3 of 3
________ Initials

179
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Your Consent
By signing this document, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you understand what the
study is about before you sign. I will give you a copy of this document for your records. I will keep a copy
with the study records. If you have any questions about the study after you sign this document, you can
contact the study team using the information provided above.
I understand what the study is about, and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part
in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. A copy of this signed Consent Form has been
given to me.

____________________________
Printed Participant Name

_______________________________
Signature of Participant

__________________
Date

By signing below, I indicate that the participant has read and to the best of my knowledge understands
the details contained in this document and has been given a copy.

_________________________
Printed Name of Investigator

_______________________________
Signature of Investigator

___________________
Date

Video Recording Release Form:
I request the use of Zoom video recording material of you as part of our study. I specifically ask your
consent to use this material, as I deem proper, specifically, for data analysis related to the study and
subsequent transcription. After analysis and the study is complete, the videos will be destroyed.
Regarding the use of your likeness in video recording, please check one of the following boxes below:
____ I do…
____ I do not…
Give unconditional permission to the investigators to utilize a video recording of me.
___________________________ __________________________
Print Name
Participant Signature

__________________
Date

180
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix D
Teacher Informed Consent Form
____________________________________________________________________________________
CONSENT TO PARTICPATE IN RESEARCH
Experiences and Perceptions of Instructional Coaches in a Large, Urban City: A Phenomenological
Study
Mark Hogue, PhD.
Mark.hogue@sru.edu
Phone: 724-738-4265
Sadiyah Lewis-El, M.Ed.
sxl1054@sru.edu
Phone: 267-432-2273
Invitation to be Part of a Research Study
You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be a teacher with at
least two years of experience teaching and six months of experience working with an instructional
coach. The study is for research purposes only and taking part in this research project is voluntary.
Important Information about the Research Study
Things you should know:
● The purpose of the study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional
leadership for instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. If you choose to
participate, you will be asked to engage in online Zoom focus group interview with other
teachers and answer a list of questions regarding your experiences and perceptions of
instructional coaches as instructional leaders. This will take approximately 60-90 minutes.
● Risks or discomforts from this research include a potential risk of a breach of confidentiality. All
participating schools and school personnel will be assigned pseudonyms for the data collection
and analyzation process to protect their confidentiality.
● The study will have no direct benefit to you as a participant but will contribute to the ongoing
knowledge in the field of instructional coaching and instructional leadership.
● Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to participate, and you can stop
at any time.
Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this
research project.
Page 1 of 3
________ Initials

181
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
What Is the Study About and Why Are We Doing it?
The purpose of the study is to understand the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership
for instructional coaches in a large, urban city school district. A dearth of instructional leadership
research that explores instructional coaches in instructional leadership roles. There is a need to focus on
the experiences and perceptions of instructional leadership held by instructional coaches.
What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study?
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to answer a set of questions regarding your
experiences and opinions of instructional coaches as instructional leaders. I expect this to take about 6090 minutes. The researcher will send a copy of the focus group interview transcript to you for your
review after the interview has been completed. This process will allow you to review and verify that all
responses to the interview questions were accurate.
How Could You Benefit From This Study?
Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because it allows
educators to better understand how instructional leadership is enacted by instructional coaches.
What Risks Might Result From Being in This Study?
Although all identifying information will be kept private, there is a minimal risk that the participants may
be identified (breach of confidentiality).
How Will We Protect Your Information?
I plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, I will not include information that
could directly identify you.
I will protect the confidentiality of your research records by utilizing pseudonyms throughout the entire
data collection and analyzation process. Your name and any other information that can directly identify
you will be stored separately from the data collected as part of the study and password protected.
What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over?
I will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Your name and other
information that can directly identify you will be kept secure and stored separately from the research
data collected as part of the study and password protected.
What Other Choices do I Have if I Don’t Take Part in this Study?
If you choose not to participate, there are no alternatives.
Page 2 of 3
________ Initials

182
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary
The decision to participate in this study is yours and yours alone. Participating in this study is voluntary.
Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You do
not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. If you decide to withdraw before this
study is completed, your data will be destroyed and not included in the final study analysis.
Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Sadiyah Lewis-El M.Ed., sxl1054@sru.edu or
the dissertation chair, Dr. Mark Hogue PhD., mark.hogue@sru.edu.
Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask
questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please
contact the following:
Institutional Review Board
Slippery Rock University
104 Maltby, Suite 302
Slippery Rock, PA 16057
Phone: (724)738-4846
Email: irb@sru.edu

Page 3 of 3
________ Initials

183
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Your Consent
By signing this document, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you understand what the
study is about before you sign. I will give you a copy of this document for your records. I will keep a copy
with the study records. If you have any questions about the study after you sign this document, you can
contact the study team using the information provided above.
I understand what the study is about, and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part
in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. A copy of this signed Consent Form has been
given to me.

____________________________
Printed Participant Name

______________________________
Signature of Participant

__________________
Date

By signing below, I indicate that the participant has read and to the best of my knowledge understands
the details contained in this document and have been given a copy.

___________________________
Printed Name of Investigator

_______________________________
Signature of Investigator

___________________
Date

Video Recording Release Form:
I request the use of Zoom video recording material of you as part of our study. I specifically ask your
consent to use this material, as I deem proper, specifically, for data analysis related to the study and
subsequent transcription. After analysis and the study is complete, the videos will be destroyed.
Regarding the use of your likeness in video recording, please check one of the following boxes below:
_____ I do…
_____ I do not…
Give unconditional permission to the investigators to utilize a video recording of me.
___________________________ __________________________
Print Name
Participant Signature

__________________
Date

184
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix E
Individual Interview Script
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Directions: This session will be recorded. Please refrain from using your name or the names of
others as part of your response to the questions.
1. Please describe your educational background and career to date.
2. How long have you been an instructional coach?
3. In what content or pedagogical areas do you provide instructional coaching?
4. What do you believe are the professional responsibilities of instructional coaches?
5. What are your specific professional duties as an instructional coach at your school/site?
6. How do you define instructional leadership?
7. In general, what role, if any, do you believe instructional coaches play in a school’s instructional
leadership?
8. In what ways do you act as an instructional leader in the site(s) in which you provide instructional
coaching?
9. In what ways do you impact the instructional practices and programing at your school/site?
10. What factors support you acting as an instructional leader?
11. How do you influence the factors that support your instructional leadership?
12. What barriers prohibit you from acting as an instructional leader?
13. How do you influence these barriers that prohibit your instructional leadership?
14. How do you measure your success as an instructional coach?
15. How would you describe your supervisor’s leadership style?
16. What professional expectations has your supervisor communicated related to your role as an
instructional coach?
17. How do you feel your supervisor’s leadership impacts your ability to fulfill your role as an
instructional coach?
18. How are you evaluated as an instructional coach?

185
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
19. What perceptions exist among the professional staff related to instructional coaches?
20. What else would you like to add to our discussion of your experiences and perceptions of
instructional leadership as an instructional coach?

186
EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
Appendix F
Focus Group Interview Script
Focus-Group Interview Questions for Teachers
Directions: This session will be recorded. Please refrain from using your name or the names of
others as part of your response to the questions.
1. Please describe your educational background and career through your current position.
2. How long have you worked with the instructional coach at your school?
3. How does the instructional coach at your school professionally support you?
4. What do you believe are the general professional responsibilities of the instructional coach?
5. What professional expectations has your principal/school leadership communicated related to
your instructional coach’s professional duties?
6. How do you define instructional leadership?
7. Do you consider your instructional coach to be an instructional leader at your school?
8. How successful do you consider your instructional coach?
9. What factors influence your instructional coach’s success?
10. What perceptions exist among the professional staff related to instructional coaches?
11. What else would you like to add to our discussion of your experiences and perceptions of
instructional leadership as an instructional coach?