What Does It Mean to Say Coaching Is Relational?
Open accessAbstract
This metasynthesis presents the collective findings based on a small corpus of studies ( n = 28) that examined literacy coaching in elementary and secondary settings from a relational perspective. We frame our analysis using Lysaker’s notions of relational teaching and theorize that, like classroom teaching, powerful literacy coaching is grounded in dialogic, co-constructive interactions in which the coach and teacher jointly develop new knowledge and skills. Our analysis indicates that the realization of co-construction may be influenced by differential patterns related to positioning and dispositions toward coaching: (a) knowledge flow, (b) distributed expertise, and (c) vulnerability. To explicate these patterns, we present evidence of opportunities that enhanced co-construction and obstacles that reduced co-construction. We conclude by discussing how coaches and teachers can develop reciprocity in coach–teacher relationships and move toward more relational coaching approaches. Finally, we provide directions for future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With the university team's collaboration, the two school-based instructional leaders facilitated the leadership team at Echoland in establishing situated professional learning opportunities that balanced insider and outsider experiences and knowledge with a more horizontal distribution of expertise.
“the two school-based instructional leaders facilitated the leadership team at Echoland in establishing situated professional learning opportunities (e.g., Gersten et al., 2010) that balanced insider and outsider experiences and knowledge with a more horizontal distribution of expertise (Robertson et al., 2020;Snow, 2015).”
From Exploring the role of instructional leaders in promoting agency in teachers’ professional learning (2024) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2020
The embedded teacher leaders for this team, as opposed to the principal or coach or external partners, seemed to provide space for a more horizontal distribution of expertise as Natalie and Amanda facilitated both planning and reflection.
“the”
From Exploring the role of instructional leaders in promoting agency in teachers’ professional learning (2024) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 59 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Robertson, D. A., Padesky, L. B., Ford-Connors, E., & Paratore, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Wyoming (US)
- Boston University, MA, USA
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Robertson, Dana A.
- Venue
- Journal of Literacy Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-01-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-78
- ISSN
- 1086-296X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-8430
- OpenAlex
- W3000252013
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Literacy Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- literacy coaching, relational pedagogy, co-construction, dialogic interaction, knowledge flows, distributed expertise, vulnerability, reciprocity, K-12 education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
