Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity: A Case Study in Alberta W. Todd Rogers University of Alberta Cal P. Hauserman Athabasca University Jacqueline Skytt Alberta Teachers’ Association Abstract The impact of Cognitive CoachingSM included as part of the Leader2Leader (L2L) Leadership Pilot Program for beginning principals in Alberta, Canada, was evaluated in the present study. Fifteen qualified principals (coaches) and 23 new principals completed the L2L Pilot Program that took place over 18 months. Questionnaires for coaches and new principals were used to obtain reactions to the Cognitive Coaching component. The findings suggest that the L2L Leadership Program can help develop a network of reflect- ive, self-reliant school principals. Recommendations for improving the Cognitive Coach- ing component of the L2L Leadership Program are provided. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) ©2016 Canadian Society for the Study of Education/ Société canadienne pour l’étude de l’éducation www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 2 Keywords: Cognitive Coaching, program evaluation, new principals, experienced princi- pals (coaches) Résumé La présente étude a évalué le volet Cognitive CoachingSM du programme pilote de leadership Leader2Leader (L2L) destiné aux nouvelles directions d’école en Alberta, au Canada. Quinze directions d’écoles d’expérience (accompagnateurs/accompagnatrices) et 23 nouvelles directions d’école ont participé au programme L2L Pilot, qui s’est déroulé sur 18 mois. Des questionnaires pour les accompagnateurs et accompagnatrices et les nouvelles directions ont été utilisées en vue de colliger les réactions au volet Cognitive Coaching. Les résultats indiquent que le programme L2L peut aider à mettre sur pied un réseau de directions d’école autonomes et circonspectes. Des recommandations pour améliorer le volet Cognitive Coaching du programme L2L sont fournies. Mots-clés : Cognitive Coaching, évaluation d’un programme, nouvelles directions d’école, directions d’école d’expérience (accompagnateurs) Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 3 Introduction Principals, working with teachers, provide the vision for their schools and create a safe and nurturing learning environment (Gaziel, 2007; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Youngs & King, 2002). Importantly, principals foster high academic expectations for students (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, 2000a, 2000b; Net- tles & Herrington, 2007). Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) concluded that school leadership “is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning” (p. 5). Later, Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, and Anderson (2010) indicated that there have been no cases of improvement in the level of student achievement without effective school leadership (see also Kaplan, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000a; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Sebas- tian & Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz, et al., 2010). In order to better prepare new principals to meet these expectations, their own learning needs to be properly addressed through professional development (Pedder, 2006). Individual and collaborative work should be combined to achieve this goal. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a program evaluation of the process of Cog- nitive CoachingSM (Costa & Garmston, 1994, 2002) included as part of the professional development Leader2Leader (L2L) Leadership Pilot Program for beginning principals in the province of Alberta, Canada. Professional Development Development of school leadership occurs as problems emerge and leaders acquire the ability to transfer knowledge from known solutions to new situations. Professional development designed to foster this expertise is most effective if it meets both immediate and long-term needs of school leaders. Time is needed to absorb, practice, discuss, and adapt knowledge to their working contexts (Garet, Porter, Andrew, & Desimone, 2001; Guskey, 2000). Effective professional development addresses the personal nature of learning, thus accounting for the individual needs of professionals (Clarke & Hollings- worth, 2002). Spanneut, Tobin, and Ayers (2012) studied the professional development needs of 273 elementary, middle, and high school principals in the State of New York. Using a Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 4 four-point Likert-type scale, participants rated their professional development needs with respect to 31 functions identified in the six Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consor- tium (ISLLC) Standards. They also rated the effectiveness of eight professional develop- ment delivery methods. Spanneut et al. reported that the principals strongly indicated that they wanted to identify their own professional development needs with respect to the 31 functions, a finding that led Spanneut et al. to conclude that principals should have “au- tonomy” in selecting professional development that aligns with their own plans. The most preferred delivery methods included workshops, mentoring/coaching, small study groups, and conferences. The least-preferred delivery methods were university coursework on- line, university course work on campus, and self-paced online learning. A mentoring/coaching program operated by the Ontario Ministry of Education was based on a theoretical framework consistent with cognitive theory and adaptive ex- pertise (Nanavati & Robinson, 2009). Both one-on-one coaching and group experiences positively influenced new principals’ capacity in the areas identified in the Leadership Framework for Ontario. Nanavati and Robinson (2009) concluded that new principals improved their skills and their sense of confidence as new administrators by having the opportunity to network and meet other administrators in training sessions and group meetings to overcome the culture of isolation that often accompanies the first year of administration. Cognitive CoachingSM Initially developed to support teachers, Cognitive Coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1994, 2002, 2012) involves a non-judgmental and confidential relationship between a coach and teacher based on authenticity, honesty, respect, and empathy.1 Cognitive Coaching does not intend to change overt behaviour through counselling, providing advice, or by telling teachers what to do. Instead, Cognitive Coaching focuses entirely on developing internal thought processes and self-directedness of the teacher being coached. The coach ensures that empowering the teacher to be self-sufficient is the focus of each coaching conversation. 1 Cognitive CoachingSM is a service-marked term, but for literary purposes, the service mark will not appear through- out the remainder of this document. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 5 Coaching maps guide the three types of conversations that comprise the Cognitive Coaching process: a. Planning conversations help teachers being coached to clarify goals for a lesson, identify approaches and strategies for instruction, and create an as- sessment plan about how they will assess their students. They are encouraged to establish a personal learning focus and begin to articulate processes for self-assessment. They are then given a chance to reflect on the planning pro- cess and to explore and refine their ideas. b. Reflection conversations provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on their lessons and how the implementation of the teaching and assessments worked. They are encouraged to identify causal factors and create new meaning. They are also given a chance to reflect on the impact of the reflecting conversation and to explore and refine their thoughts. c. Problem-solving conversations begin with the existing state of the teacher. The coach first acknowledges the existing state, frames the desired state with the teacher, and then assists the teacher to draw on his or her own resources or locate new resources to reach the desired state. Coaches create a safe and non-judgmental environment in which they carefully listen, follow the agenda of the teacher, paraphrase what the teacher says, allow silence and space for reflection, and offer feedback in the form of a probing question or a pos- sible solution presented in the form of a question. The intent is to develop self-directed teachers who are self-managing, self-monitoring, and self-modifying (Costa & Garmston, 2012). Showers (1984, 1985) found that teachers who were coached demonstrated the newly learned strategies and skills more effectively than teachers who were not coached. Joyce (1987) found that whereas only 5% of the teachers learned a new skill and incorpo- rated it into their instructional practice when only theory was taught, added demonstration increased the implementation level to 10%, added practice increased the implementation level to 20%, feedback during practice increased the implementation level to 25%, and Cognitive Coaching used in conjunction with theory, demonstration, practice, and feed- back increased the implementation level to 90%. Slinger (2004) reported that “Cognitive Coaching was responsible for developing deeper and stronger relationships with peers as Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 6 well as with their students” (p. 57). Coy (2004) found “self-directed learning was evident for mentors and protégés in that they recognized their strengths and weaknesses and ei- ther sought solutions to their dilemmas or modified their behaviours” (p. 148). Similar to the findings of Joyce (1987), Batt (2010) reported that of the teachers who participated in a training program for a new program, 53% implemented the program following training alone and 100% implemented the program when Cognitive Coaching was included as part of their training. Loeschen (2012) found clarification in the thinking and practice of teachers as mentors supported teachers and that teachers developed their own capacity to self-reflect, leading to modified beliefs and actions. Although Cognitive Coaching initially started with teachers, Cognitive Coaching has been successfully used with school principals (Ellison, 2003; Ellison & Hayes, 2005). Qualified coaches were experienced principals who had completed the Cognitive Coach- ing Foundation Program. The Foundation Program consists of 40 hours of training, which includes working individually with one principal in need of support. Following training, the Cognitive Coaching takes place over one or two years, depending on the availabil- ity of time for both the coach and the principal being coached. The process is basically the same as the process used with teachers, with each coach working with the principal being coached. The intent is to develop self-directed principals who are self-managing, self-monitoring, and self-modifying. Olivero, Bane, and Kopelman (1997) included workshops and Cognitive Coach- ing with 31 managers and supervisors employed in a health agency in the State of New York. The participants attended a three-day workshop on management that included a variety of interactive activities and focused on their work roles. The workshops were followed by eight weeks of one-on-one Cognitive Coaching. The managers and supervi- sors met with their coach once a week for one hour. The topics discussed included goal setting, collaborative problem solving, practice, feedback, supervisory involvement, and evaluation of end-results. Olivero et al. reported that while the three-day workshop increased the productivity of the managers and supervisors by 22%, the addition of the eight-week one-to-one Cognitive Coaching increased their productivity by 88%. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 7 Evaluation Questions The program evaluation was focussed on the Cognitive Coaching that took place during the L2L Leadership Pilot Program in Alberta during the school years 2012–2013 and 2013–2014. The following two questions were addressed: 1. What are the impressions of the coaches and new principals about Cognitive Coaching included in the L2L Leadership Pilot Program? 2. What changes took place in the schools with new principals during the L2L Leadership Pilot Program? Workshops, which were included as part of the pilot program and were developed in response to a needs assessment of the coaches and new principals, were individually evaluated at the end of the workshop as a regular part of the Alberta Teachers’ Associa- tion’s professional development programs. These evaluations are not part of this program evaluation. Method Pilot L2L Leadership Program Given the importance of school leadership and the projected retirement of a number of current principals, the Alberta Teachers’ Association initiated a 16-month pilot of the L2L Leadership Program to support newly appointed principals. The purpose of the L2L Lead- ership Program was “to develop a network of reflective, self-reliant school leaders whose high-quality leadership optimizes student learning and supports improvement initiatives that take into account the unique context of each school” (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2012, p. 1). The L2L Leadership Pilot Program, which was based on the design successfully used by Olivero et al. (1997), consisted of a. four 1- or 2-day professional development workshops held in January 2013, May 2013, September 2013, and January 2014, Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 8 b. Cognitive Coaching sessions, four of which were held during the second to fourth workshops. Given the distances between the coaches and their new principals, face-to-face, telephone, email and Skype conversations were used between workshops, c. a 2-day Leadership Essentials for Administrators Conference held in Novem- ber 2013 and intended for school administrators in their first or second year, and d. a celebration day during which the new principals presented either the results of their personal growth plan or a plan for changes in their schools. In addition, two refresher workshops for the coaches were held—one before the May 2013 professional development workshop and the other at the time of the confer- ence held in November 2013—to address issues raised by the coaches (e.g., conduct of a problem-solving conversation). Coaches were asked to use Cognitive Coaching in their interactions with each new principal and to avoid evaluating, providing consulting to, and collaborating with the new principals they were coaching. Evaluation Design While the best evaluation design to address the effectiveness of Cognitive Coaching would have been to have two random samples of new principals (experimental design) or two similar samples of new principals (quasi-experimental design) to allow examination of cause-and-effect relationships, the start-up time and costs of the pilot L2L Leadership Program precluded use of either of these designs. Consequently, the evaluation design involved the coaches as the control group and new principals as the treatment group.2 Participants Fifteen experienced principals in Alberta volunteered to serve as coaches. Of the 15 principals, 13 had completed the Cognitive Coaching program (40 hours over eight days) and two were currently completing the Cognitive Coaching program. Two of the 29 new 2 While it would also have been beneficial to collect data from teachers, students, and parent/guardians, the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s ethics policy precluded collecting these data. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 9 principals who applied to participate in the pilot program did not receive approval from their district superintendent. Further, before the beginning of the 2013–2014 school year, five new principals left the pilot program (no longer a principal [1], wanted consulting [1], personal or family reasons [3]). During the first introductory workshop held in December 2012, the coaches and new principals intermingled in a series or professional development activities, after which the new principals provided a list of coaches they would like to work with. The list was used to form coaching pairs subject to the condition that a coach and new principal could not be from the same or adjoining school district so as to protect privacy. Eight coaches individually coached two new principals, and seven coaches coached one new principal. Questionnaires A questionnaire for the coaches and a questionnaire for the new principals were con- structed to obtain information about their schools, their impressions of Cognitive Coach- ing, and themselves. The intent of the questions included in the questionnaires was to determine a. how well the Cognitive Coaching was being conducted, b. what the coaches and new principals saw as strengths of Cognitive Coaching, c. what recommended changes the coaches and new principals had to improve Cognitive Coaching of new principals, and d. what changes were in the schools of the new principals from the beginning of the L2L Leadership Pilot Program and the time at which the questionnaires were administered. While the two questionnaires contained the same three parts (description of the school, impression of Cognitive Coaching, description of self), the questions were not always the same due to the differences in experience with and knowledge of Cognitive Coaching between the coaches and new principals: 1. The questions designed to obtain a description of the school were the same in both questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca Using Cognitive Coaching to Build School Leadership Capacity 10 2. Some questions about impressions of Cognitive Coaching were the same for the coaches and new principals (e.g., incidence of evaluation, consulting, col- laboration, and/or coaching). Other questions were similar (e.g., will coaches continue if the L2L Leadership Program is offered after the pilot and will new principals take the training to become a coach). The remaining questions were tailored for coaches and new princi- pals (e.g., while the coaches were asked how many planning, reflection, and problem-solving conversations were held and how confident they were in conducting the activities associated with each conversation, the new principals were asked if specific behaviours associated with planning, reflection, and problem-solving conversations occurred). 3. Of the 11 questions about self, seven were common for coaches and new principals (e.g., changes in behaviour—principals know what and how they are thinking about their work and are aware of the consequences of their ac- tions). The remaining four questions about self were for new principals (e.g., compared to when they started as a principal, how well they felt they were prepared and how confident they were to address instructional issues, manage school operations and resources, attend to personnel issues, administer school discipline, and interact with parents/guardians and the community at-large).3 Since the new principals did not know the process of Cognitive Coaching at the beginning of the pilot program, the questionnaires were sent once and returned by email at the end of January 2014. The response rate was 100%. A follow-up telephone interview was conducted with each coach and new principal during the first three weeks of Febru- ary. The purpose of the interview was to clarify responses to different questions for each principal being interviewed (e.g., omitted items, clarification of written responses). The coaches and new principals were asked in the questionnaires to make up to three recommendations for improving the L2L Leadership Program based on their par- ticipation in the pilot program. To allow all the coaches and new principals to review the 3 Greater detail about the questionnaires is provided with the results. Copies of the questionnaires and the tables with the full set of results can be obtained from the first author. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation 39:3 (2016) www.cje-rce.ca