1. Instructional Coaching Program: A Means to an End
Impacts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned
2009-2011
Gateway to College National Network’s coaching program has been an important means to an end in
creating a Network-wide culture of innovative teaching and learning. This document, a component to an
evaluation conducted by GtCNN’s research and evaluation department outlines the evolution of the
coaching program; summarizes impacts on the organization, individuals, and participating teams; and
discusses implementation challenges, responses to those challenges, and future recommendations.
The Impact of Coaching for the Organization
Background
In 2008, the Gateway to College model had been operating for eight years. Up through this point, Gateway
to College National Network’s (GtCNN) educational philosophy hinged upon the importance of relationships
and intensive student supports best embodied by the role of the resource specialist. While GtCNN’s
approach to student support was, and still remains, an important contribution to educational innovation
and reform nationally, the Network did not have a strong culture of innovative teaching and learning.
As Gateway to College programs entered the 2008-2009 academic year, a new teaching and learning
initiative was being formulated in order to advance our practice and improve educational outcomes for
Gateway students. The need for new instructional innovations was informed by GtCNN staff experiences
visiting Gateway classrooms. Instruction was somewhat of a mixed bag. While staff observed pockets of
good instruction, there were many examples of the traditional ‘stand and deliver’ approach to teaching that
GtCNN staff had heard Gateway students exclaim hadn’t previously worked for them. Instructional
innovations disseminated by the Early College High School Initiative’s demonstration school, University
Park, as well as evaluation results of Gates’ Small Schools Project (that concluded that teacher and
instructional quality had the greatest impact on student results) further informed GtCNN’s resolve to create
a culture of innovative instruction.
The new GtCNN instructional initiative focused on collaborative learning techniques and group work to
actively engage students in constructing course content meaning, and designing curriculum with the “end
in mind” – that is, to assess students on what they needed to know and do in order to be successful college
students. Over time, these focus areas were expanded upon and became the GtCNN Principles of Teaching
and Learning.
The instructional coaching program began in January, 2009 with two part-time contract coaches. They
provided the energy, in-depth instructional knowledge and skills, and the classroom clout to move forward
the new initiative. More broadly, the coaches served as an important catalyst to realize the large task of
culture change envisioned for the Network – to make innovative, quality instruction central to the
Network’s plans for student success.
1
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

2. This was a tall order. From a national perspective, most college faculty rely heavily on an instructor-
centered, rather than a student-centered approach to education. According to the Center for Community
College and Student Engagement’s 2010 national faculty survey of student engagement (CCFSSE), while
98% of faculty reported that they use the lecture method, respondents reported that they never
incorporated the following:
 Small group work - 21%
 Student presentations – 40%
 Experiential work (such as project-based learning) – 66%
 Hands-on practice – 27%
(source: 2010 CCFSSE cohort data, add WEB ADDRESS)
The Numbers at a Glance
 19 Gateway to College partner colleges received the coaching service
 9 Project DEgree partner colleges received the coaching service
 Between January 2009 and February, 2013, coaches are making 171 trips to partner colleges,
spending approximately 342 days spent on site
 Coaches have interacted with and provided direct services to approximately 150 faculty and
program leaders
Coaching Start-up and Program Growth
Five colleges were chosen for the coaching pilot, four colleges in the program start-up phase, and one
mature program. Each college was offered a coaching package, which included six-to-seven two-day onsite
visits from the coach over a period of approximately 18-months. The goals for instructional coaching were
designed around the premise that the coaching package was short-term in nature and therefore, the role of
the coach was to serve as a catalyst for sustained change in practice. The goals were as follows:
1. Develop and nurture instructional leadership skills among program directors/leads to ensure that
the coaching initiatives “live on” after the coaching service sunsets.
2. Facilitate the design of integrated, thematic, project-based curriculum, artifacts, tools, frameworks,
and codified design processes that have uses in multiple contexts and environments.
3. Build instructional capacity by working one-on-one with Gateway instructors to assess individual
needs, observe classes, and provide feedback.
4. Develop a community of practitioners who provide mutual support and help each other to improve
individual practice, from which students become the beneficiary.
5. Identify and develop “instructor leaders” who can share instructional leadership responsibilities
with program directors.
6. Link like-minded staff across programs.
2
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

3. The pilot period was evaluated using the survey and interview methods. Anonymous surveys were
administered to participating instructors and in-depth phone interviews were conducted with participating
Gateway to College directors. While preliminary, results of the pilot evaluation were promising enough to
expand the coaching program to additional colleges over the next two years. During this time a more in-
depth evaluation was undertaken.
Building Momentum
Coach early successes translated into a new momentum around the importance of instructional innovation
within the Network. Both coaches attended the 2009 GtCNN Peer Learning Conference, providing
conference sessions and taking the quality of teaching and learning-related workshops to a higher level.
This was combined with direct messaging from Network leadership about the importance of the
instructional initiative. For example, the conference welcome letter, signed by the National Network
president and staff stated,
We must transform our identity to become not just the innovative support model, not only the
innovative access model, but the innovative education model that delivers. At the heart of the
transformation is teaching and learning. We must focus on the critical task of making innovative
and inspired instruction central to our plans for student success.
As the coaching program expanded during the 2009-2010 academic year and again during the 2010-2011
academic year, over 75% of Network colleges were offered coaching services. At its peak, six contract
coaches were providing coaching services to program leaders and their instructional and student services
team members at 21 colleges. Those colleges not eligible to receive the coaching package directly benefited
in others ways through increased exposure to a higher number of quality instruction-related workshops
offered at the annual conference, which served as a critical vehicle in the culture change process.
Table 1 illustrates how the teaching and learning initiative, driven by the coaching program, more than
doubled the opportunities for Network members to be exposed to the innovative teaching and learning
practices.
Table 1:
Teaching and Learning (T & L) Related Workshops Offered at the GtCNN Annual Peer Learning Conference
Conference Percentage of Of T & L, Of T & L, percent Of T & L, percent
Year T & L related percent peer- offered by GtCNN-led
workshops led workshops coach/guest-led workshops
workshops
2006 25% (8/32) 89% (7/8) 0% (0/8) 13% (1/8)
Prior to 2007 29% (10/34) 70% (7/10) 20% (2/10) 10% (1/10)
coaching 2008 31% (9/36) 77% (7/9) 22% (2/9) 0% (0/9)
Coaching Y1 2009 63% (25/40) 56% (14/25) 36% (9/25) 8% (2/25)
Coaching Y2 2010 50% (20/40) 55%(11/20) 40% (8/20) 5% (1/20)
Coaching Y3 2011 62% (32/52) 53% (17/32) 38% (12/32) 9% (3/32)
3
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

4. Table 2 illustrates that as the coaching initiative matured, there was a large increase in peer-led sessions
offered by participants who were receiving the coaching service. In 2009, this percentage was modest. Only
five colleges had been receiving coaching services for less than 6 months leading up to the conference. As
coaching continued, a more “grass-roots” level of change took hold. Faculty and leaders who were receiving
the coaching service were encouraged to offer workshops. They offered sessions in line with the innovative
teaching and learning methods that they were being coached, providing a diverse array of case studies
others in the Network could learn from and be inspired by. Participants and program teams set individual
and team goals based on conference “take-aways” further adding to the change momentum.
Table 2: Teaching and Learning Related Workshops Led by Peers from
Partner Colleges Receiving the Coaching Service
Year Percentage of Of T & L, percent Of peer-led,
Colleges in the peer-led percent who
Network Receiving workshops received
Coaching coaching
2009 20% (5/25) 56% (14/25) 14%(2/14)
2010 46% (14/30) 55%(11/20) 81% (9/11)
2011 74% (23/31) 53% (17/32) 100% (17/17)
Paying it Forward
“Our coach provides individual professional and personal development to every staff member. It’s a low
cost, high yield strategy. Think about what it would cost to send people away to do that.” –Jill Marks, RCC
Program Director
A derivative impact of coaching was the establishment of the Riverside City College (RCC) demonstration
site. RCC, the only mature program involved in the original coaching pilot, was developed into a Network
demonstration site in order to reach additional college personnel. Demonstration site visitations allow
visiting teams to learn key concepts and innovative practices in a training setting, observe those practices in
action in a “live” classroom, and then debrief the experience afterwards using the “rounds model” adapted
from the theory-to-practice approach to learning pioneered by medical schools. RCC’s coach was
instrumental in preparing them to transition into an instructional leadership capacity for the Network. By
the end of the 2011, ten partner college teams will have had the opportunity to visit a demonstration site
like RCC. Riverside City College is an example of how GtCNN has been able to leverage the initial expense of
the coach for the benefit of many. This “learn it, do it, teach it” model is now being further piloted in a new
GtCNN project called Innovation Collaborative in which faculty are first trained on the GtCNN Principles of
Teaching and Learning, supported by a coach during an initial implementation and refinement phase, and
then taught skills allowing them to support additional faculty using the same manner in which they were
previously supported.
The Impact of Coaching for Participating College Teams
Over the course of the three-year instructional coaching initiative, GtCNN identified a set of conditions that
help increase the success and deepen the impact of coaching for participating Gateway to College and
Project DEgree teams.
4
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

5. 1. Intensity. Impact is greater when the intensity of coaching work is sustained over time. Programs
that benefit most set clear goals for the coach, receive regular visits from the coach (2 visits per
term on average), and sustains the effort in between visits through the establishment of goal-
related work groups and communities of practice.
2. Planning. Impact is greater when expectations with staff have been set from the beginning, extra
meeting time has been scheduled, tight visit agendas have been crafted, and part time faculty have
been compensated for the extra time needed to collaborate around coach-led work.
3. Deep Reach to Carefully Selected Personnel. Impact is greater when coaching work is limited to a
small, focused group of college professionals with the capacity and interest in undertaking the
change process at a deep level. Care should be taken in choosing college faculty better positioned
to further transfer their new knowledge and skills to others throughout the institution, such of full-
time faculty; faculty chairs, teaching and learning center coordinators, and college opinion leaders.
4. Consistency of Action. Impact is greater when the coach consistently meets with each person they
are coaching each time the coach makes an onsite visit. In turn, each individual experiences a
greater amount of professional growth.
5. Strength of Relationships. There is a fine balance between providing top-notch customer service to
program leaders and staff and asking the difficult questions necessary to move those being coached
to a higher level of performance. This balance is accomplished through trust building,
transparency, direct communication, and providing invitations for feedback.
The Impact of Coaching for Participating Individuals
“[My coach] and her knowledge….awesome. Having her as a coach has been the best part of Gateway.”
In addition to the pilot evaluation undertaken in 2009, partner college instructors in the Gateway to College
and Project DEgree programs who had received coaching during the 2010-2011 time period had an
opportunity to provide written comments via a confidential survey at three separate points. Several broad
themes emerged from their feedback.
Coach Skills and Services
Participants valued certain skills and services that coaches provided them. Receiving constructive feedback
from a coach and opportunities to obtain an outside perspective in various areas of instruction, curriculum
planning, and collaboration was consistently ranked as a primary benefit of coaching. Comments included,
“I was able to get feedback about weak areas in a specific lesson plan and strong points.” –PDE
participant
“[My coach] provided me with a perspective no other colleague has offered. Consequently, the
feedback I receive from her is unique and very rich. I love working with [her] and hope to work with
more instructional coaches.” –GtC participant
5
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

6. Survey respondents often tied the worth in receiving constructive feedback to the specific skills and areas
of knowledge that coaches brought to the table, such as their facilitation skills, knowledge of techniques
and strategies in alternative assessment (e.g., knowledge of rubrics), classroom delivery, classroom
management, student engagement, and new approaches to lesson planning. Remarks included,
“We sadly met with our coach for the last time as required by GtC. She helped us with setting up
PBL, establishing co-curricular assignments, creating rubrics and ways to use them, cognitive
strategies, and great ideas on new approaches to existing lessons.” –GtC participant
“I marveled at [the coach’s] depth of understanding of what strong classroom teaching looks like
and how fluidly she conveyed this understanding to faculty and support persons.” –PDE participant
“I like how [my coach] brings our group back together as an effort to have us focus on the task at
hand. We often times get sidetracked and she certainly has patience and holds her composure with
us.” –PDE participant
Participants noted the expert advice and guidance that they received in implementing many concepts
embodied in the Gateway Principles of Teaching and Learning, such as implementing project based
learning, receiving support with integrated design, backwards design, and curriculum planning in general.
Comments included,
“Amazing insight. Affirming and helpful in terms of understanding the dynamics of students’
interaction with the material.” –PDE participant
“The instructional coach has been helpful right from the inception stage and gently led us in the
direction we needed to go based on our needs.” –GtC participant
Some survey respondents mentioned other services that were of benefit as well. Some mentioned the
significance of their coach’s ability to provide tailored services that fit their individual needs, being held
accountable to “promises I’ve made to myself,” having a partner to brainstorm with, and having resources
such as cutting edge research being made available to them. Several observations were,
“She had articles and activities that were relevant to the student’s learning” –PDE participant
“[I was] held accountable to make changes I already know are a good idea.” –GtC participant
Opportunities for Growth
Above and beyond the specific skills and services that coaches were able to provide to partner college
faculty and staff, many survey respondents mentioned that their coach helped them to grow and develop
as professionals. On one hand, many mentioned that the coach provided them validation for the strengths
they already brought to their teaching, which some described as “empowering,” or “reinforcing what I
already know.” Others commented that the coach helped them to take risks in the classroom, feel more
confident as an instructor, and feel less overwhelmed. Finally, there were several comments made by less
experienced instructors who felt that the coach gave them a solid foundation for instruction. Some specific
remarks were,
“The instructional coaching program really helped me grow. It challenged me to take risks in the
classroom and to think beyond the ‘norm’ and reach for the extraordinary.” –GtC participant
6
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

7. “Our coach has helped all of us here at the college to learn techniques and skills needed for a
learning community. She has a gift of bringing out the best of us.” –PDE participant
“This has been a wonderful experience for me. I wish that my colleagues had this opportunity to
grow and improve. Thank you very much!!!” –PDE participant
Coaching Program Limitations
Survey respondents also commented on the limitations to the coaching program. There were a few
comments that indicated a participant found little value in the coaching that they received. Other
comments included lack of preparedness, limited expertise in a specific content area, too theoretical, too
rushed, or too much breadth and not enough time to dig deeper. The primary limitation mentioned, in fact,
was time. There was a consistent theme that participants wanted a greater frequency of visits.
Respondents wanted more one-on-one time, more observations, and more time allotted for follow-up in
between visits. Several remarks were,
[The coach] was “only available for a very limited amount of hours so she has not been as much of a
resource as she could be.” –PDE participant
“One on one sessions were brief. I would have benefitted from getting more feedback from her.” –
GtC participant.
Likewise, some respondents mentioned that their own time was a limitation, and felt challenged to be
prepared leading up to a coaching visit. One respondent said,
“Time is always the issue – with the budget limitations our classes are large and there is so much to
do – sometimes it is easier to go back to what you used to do and not try to take time consuming
risks to make things better.”
Coaching Program Challenges, Responses, and Recommendations
In addition to the coaching limitations mentioned above, a set of challenges arose during early
implementation of the coaching program, including site readiness, staff turnover, varied coaching
approaches, misperceptions of the coaching program, and segmented support. Further discussion of these
challenges and responses to each have been provided below.
1. Staff turnover. Staff changes were very common during the first 1-2 years of implementation. The
coaching investment sometimes ‘left’ with the personnel.
Response
In response, GtCNN has begun requiring the participation of full-time faculty in the Innovation
Collaborative and strongly advising the hire of full-time faculty for the Gateway and Project DEgree
programs.
Future Recommendations
While some progress has been made, especially with Project DEgree, staff turnover remains the
largest challenge to the coaching program. For the future, it is recommended that the training and
7
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

8. technical assistance strategy for faculty hiring be completely redesigned. Further hiring
requirements such as the use of full-time faculty, the creation of new tools to help colleges identify
and assess the right person for the job are needed. In addition, targeting coordinators of teaching
and learning centers for the service with a “train-the-coach” component would provide an
embedded person on site to handle new staff training and sustainability needs once the coaching
service sunsets.
2. Varied approaches. Coaches differed in approach based on their experience, background, and
strengths.
Response
GtCNN has been successful in minimizing this challenge. Starting in 2010, a detailed list of
deliverables was added into the coaching contracts to clarify expectations. The deliverables helped
guide the work being done onsite. Twice annual in person coach meetings and quarterly conference
calls facilitated by GtCNN provided an opportunity to further clarify required approaches versus
preferred approaches. Open communication and idea sharing among the coaches turned diversity
of experience into a strength as opposed to a challenge. Furthermore, as coaching transitions from
being contracted to being offered ‘in house’ by GtCNN staff, common practices, tools, and
strategies are being identified and refined as needed.
Future Recommendations
As GtCNN’s in house coaching capacity develops, it will be useful for coaches to shadow each other
onsite to provide each other continuous improvement feedback as well as to learn from the
strengths of one another.
3. Misperceptions of the coaching program. Some college leaders didn’t make full use of their coach,
canceled scheduled visits at the last moment, and may have viewed coaching as ‘another
requirement’ versus a ‘benefit to be fully utilized.’
Response
GtCNN has been successful in addressing this challenge. As an initial response, GtCNN created a
request for coaching services document that clearly outlined the coaching program expectations for
the director, the coach, and the GtCNN partner support lead. Furthermore, the document indicated
the number of days of the services they were able to take advantage of, and then asked directors to
request the number of days of the service they wished to receive. Each program director completed
the request including their signature. The completed requests were then used to create the new
contracts with coaches prior to the beginning of the 2010-2011 academic year.
For Project DEgree, this challenge was greatly minimized from the beginning. During the discovery
phase with Project DEgree candidate colleges, coaching was discussed proactively. Faculty as well
as college administrators had an opportunity to respond to concerns and ask any questions early on
so that expectations were clear well before start-up contracts were signed. In addition, colleges
were required to budget for faculty collaborative planning times. This ensured that faculty would
be adequately compensated for time spent doing coach-related activities such as curriculum design
retreats.
Future Recommendations
As GtCNN expansion continues, it is recommended that the expectations of the coaching service be
communicated early and often, starting with discovery meetings. As program directors/leads and
8
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

9. faculty are hired, expectations should be newly communicated. Likewise, GtCNN should continue to
require colleges to use budget start-up seed money to pay for collaborative planning time.
4. Segmented Support. Coaches have worked in tandem with GtCNN partner support staff who offer
‘generalist’ support with program start-up and continuous improvement to a college while the
coach focused specifically on instruction-related matters. Since coaches worked as independent
contractors, there was sometimes a disconnect between the coach and partner support lead in
working on behalf of a partner program.
Response
This challenge was fully solved during the 2010-2011 academic year. A deliverable was added to the
coaches’ contracts requiring them to communicate directly with a GtCNN partner support lead
prior to and following an onsite visit.
Future Recommendations
There are no further recommendations at this time.
5. Site readiness. Coaching primarily focused on supporting new programs. Some sites were still too
focused on basic implementation issues and were not ready to receive coaching. Others exhibited
more readiness.
Response
For Gateway programs, this has remained a challenge. Ease of basic implementation varies from
college to college and includes factors such as director competence, healthy K-12/college
partnerships, and state and local regulations which impact program operations. Under the contract
coach model, the coaching package needed to be more rigidly defined, creating greater difficulties
when readiness issues arose. GtCNN’s transition to an in house coaching model will offer far more
flexibility in responding to a partner’s readiness to receive coaching. Site readiness has not been a
challenge for Project DEgree partner colleges.
Future Recommendations
It is recommended that the coaching program remain focused on supporting new programs.
However, if readiness issues arise, the coaching timeline and goals should be tailored according to
each partner’s needs.
Conclusion
Gateway to College National Network’s contract coaching program has been an important means to an end.
At the organizational level, it has been integral in supporting a cultural shift that has helped the Network
transform its identity from an innovative support model to an innovative education model with equal
strengths in support, curriculum design, and instruction. For organizational change to take hold, change at
the individual and program levels was critical. While some limitations existed, many coaching participants
valued the coaches’ expertise, services they provided, such as constructive feedback, and appreciated the
opportunities for growth. In order to increase the effects of coaching at the team level, certain conditions
needed to be met such as high intensity, deep reach, adequate planning, consistency of action, and the
presence of strong relationships.
While the establishment of the coaching program included a number of challenges such as staff turnover,
variance among coaches, program misperceptions, segmented support, and site readiness, many of the
9
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011

10. challenges were successfully solved as the program evolved. Staff turnover remains the greatest challenge
to sustaining the coaching investment. It is recommended that new strategies be developed in order to
better ensure that colleges take ownership of the innovative teaching and learning practices that coaches
promote.
Finally, it is recommended that an additional qualitative study be undertaken in order to further evaluate
the impacts of coaching for partner colleges and the individuals working for Gateway to College and in
particular, Project DEgree.
10
Prepared by Stephen Rice, Director, Project DEgree Initiatives
6/20/2011