Coaching Elementary Teachers in Literacy: Does Feedback Type Matter for Low Implementers?

For literacy coaches and teachers, feedback is an integral component of effective coaching. Yet, little is understood about the interaction between feedback and high/low implementing teachers within coaching sessions. This multiple case study explored the types of feedback literacy coaches provided both high and low implementing teachers over a two-year period. In the first year, the literacy coaches provided at least twice as much instructional feedback as emotional feedback to low-implementing teachers. Those teachers not only received more feedback in general, but the feedback they received was primarily what they needed to do to improve. In contrast, during the same period literacy coaches provided high-implementing teachers more emotional feedback than instructional feedback. Low implementation, or resistance, observed in this study may have been tied to the overwhelming amount and type of feedback the low implementing teachers received. Coaches seeking to enhance instructional practices could benefit from attending to the amount and type of feedback they provide their learners


Introduction
For literacy coaches and teachers, feedback is an integral component of effective coaching cycles (Freeman et al., 2017;Hattie & Timperley, 2007;Kraft et al., 2018;Reinke et al., 2014).Feedback provides teachers with vital information about their instructional methods and helps them find areas in which they may enhance teaching strategies to better support the literacy development of their students (Gigante et al., 2011;Shannon et al., 2021).Notable, Pianta et al. (2021) found that teachers who participated in more coaching cycles (including feedback) made larger instructional improvements than those who participated in less.
Feedback provides teachers with an opportunity to receive support and guidance from a literacy coach.By working with a coach who is knowledgeable about literacy instruction, teachers can gain valuable insights into the most effective literacy strategies and how to apply them in their classrooms for greater student outcomes in reading (Rock et al., 2009, Scheeler et al., 2010).When teachers receive feedback and coaching that supports their professional growth, they can implement evidence-based instructional practices that are more likely to positively impact student learning (Hemmeter et al., 2011).Literacy coaching that includes effective feedback can result in improved student outcomes.Feedback can help teachers understand what is expected of them in terms of literacy instruction.Through feedback, teachers receive clear and specific guidance on specific strategies to improve literacy teaching practices (Schles & Robertson, 2019).
Feedback can also help teachers reflect on their teaching (Cutrer-Párraga & Miller, 2022).Reflection is an important aspect of professional growth for teachers.When teachers reflect on their teaching practices after receiving feedback, they can build a more nuanced awareness of their strengths and weaknesses as educators.They can use this knowledge to make informed decisions about how to alter their teaching practices to better support students' literacy development (Freeman et al., 2017).

Considerations in Providing Feedback
When teachers receive helpful and nonjudgmental feedback, they are more likely to trust the coach and be more receptive to the coach's suggestions and recommendations (McCollum et al., 2013).Through the feedback process, teachers can identify areas where they are succeeding and areas where they can improve.Further, supportive feedback can help teachers feel more confident in their teaching abilities (Connor, 2017).Teachers may be more likely to remain in the profession if they believe they are valued and supported (Hester et al., 2020;Steinert et al., 2019).
While feedback can be a valuable tool for enhancing teaching practices during literacy coaching, there are a few things to consider when providing feedback.Coaches should be mindful of the individual needs of each teacher, deliver feedback in a constructive and supportive manner, and focus on specific behaviors or practices (Kurz et al., 2017, Poglinco & Bach, 2004).Scheeler et al. (2006) found when feedback was immediate, teachers learned targeted teaching behaviors more quickly.For lasting change in teaching behavior, feedback must also be specific, systematic, and positive (Artman-Meeker & Hemmeter, 2013;Gigante et al., 2011;Scheeler et al., 2006;Scheeler et al., 2010;Wiggins, 2012).
Coaches should use explicit and neutral language, provide feedback in a supportive and respectful manner, communicate learning goals and objectives clearly, and provide an action plan for change (Kurz et al., 2017;Ramani & Krackov, 2012;Shannon et al., 2021;Wiggins, 2012).Coaches must also carefully consider the timing and context of feedback and avoid overwhelming teachers with too much feedback.Feedback becomes less effective if the teacher cannot comprehend it or becomes intimidated by it.Wiggins (2012) explains this type of feedback is not "user-friendly," and goes on to explain that expert coaches consistently avoid overloading teachers with excessive feedback or feedback that is too technical.In other words, feedback can only be effective if it builds on teachers' learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;Hattie, 2012).

High and Low Implementation of Instructional Coaching
Teacher coaches recognize that change happens on a continuum.Some teachers are high implementers: they receive instructional feedback and quickly incorporate that learning into their practice.Other teachers may seem to be initially resistant to feedback and coaching.While sometimes considered a negative characteristic, resistance, or low implementation of instructional coaching, is beginning to lose that negative connotation (Sannino, 2010).
Low initial implantation of feedback can be a sign of intense involvement in the learning experience (Kindred, 1999), a signal that teachers are internally adjusting their teacher identity as they understand and adapt to coaching feedback (Valoyes-Chávez, 2019).Additionally, some teachers may prefer to wait to see how an intervention works out for others before they choose to implement changes in their own classroom (Tye & Tye, 1993).
A growing body of literature explores coaching methodology with low-implementing teachers.Relationship building, teacher choice, reflection, and collaboration have demonstrated effectiveness in alleviating resistance in a coaching dyad (Collet, 2012;Cutrer-Párraga et al., 2021;Cutrer-Párraga & Miller 2022;Knight, 2019;McKenna & Walpole, 2013).Yet little literature explores the type of feedback provided to teachers in coaching sessions in relation to high and low implementation.This study seeks to explore this gap in the literature.

Research Rationale
Teacher coaching, including feedback, has become an instrumental method to enhance teacher skills and promote best instruction practices (Cutrer-Párraga et al., 2021;Desimone & Pak, 2017).As they receive feedback within coaching sessions, teachers can reflect, adapt practices, and grow in confidence (Cutrer-Párraga & Miller, 2022;Schles & Robertson, 2019).While some studies have recognized the importance of the type of feedback coaches provide (Shannon et al., 2021), little is understood about the interaction between feedback and high/low implementing teachers within coaching sessions.
This two-year study explored the type of feedback literacy coaches provided to both high and low implementing teachers to promote literacy practice changes amongst teachers.This subgroup of a broader study focused on kindergarten teacher participants and their literacy coaches who participated in the Targeted Reading Instruction intervention (TRI; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2018).
For more information on the TRI, refer to this website: https://tri.fpg.unc.edu/educatorsData collection proceeded after IRB approval was obtained by the primary author's university.

Methods
A multiple case study methodology was utilized in this investigation.Multiple case studies are helpful when contextual factors are pertinent to study phenomena (Yin, 2018).The unique aspect of this study was that the researchers did not begin to comprehend the differing types of coach-offered feedback until the intersecting contexts of each teacher's implementation style (high or low implementing) were considered.Therefore, a case study approach was chosen to permit an in-depth, context-specific exploration of the feedback coaches offered to participating high or low implementing teachers (Stake, 2013).

Setting and Participants
As part of a broader, multi-year literacy intervention project, six kindergarten teacher and literacy coach dyads interacted for two years (participants; n=11).The teachers taught in four rural elementary schools in the Southeastern U.S. All the schools served predominantly minoritized students and all received Title 1 funds.In prior years, the schools failed to make adequate yearly progress in reading improvement.

Teacher Participants
This study involved seasoned teachers (see Table 1 for teacher demographics).All the teachers were female and taught Kindergarten.All but one identified as White and all but one was a nationally board certified teacher.One of the teachers held an advanced teaching degree.Participants had been teaching an average of 18.5 years.Two sets of high implementing and low implementing teachers taught at the same schools (Frank (LI) and Latta (HI) -School 3; and Harley (LI) and Nance (HI)-School 4).All the participating kindergarten teachers learned the TRI from their literacy coaches during a three-day summer institute prior to the first year of the study.Participating teachers were tasked with implementing the TRI with a subset of students chosen by the study's evaluators once they returned to the classroom.The TRI consisted of one-on-one sessions with a student three to four times a week for 15 minutes each during the school year.Using webcams, coaches observed one of these sessions every week and provided feedback in real time.Teachers were expected to implement the TRI daily and participate in weekly literacy coaching sessions.In this study, teachers with low implementation were characterized as those who completed five or fewer coaching sessions throughout the first academic year of the study.In contrast, high implementers participated in twice as many coaching sessions as low implementers throughout the first year.

Coach Participants
Five literacy coaches (four female and one male) participated in this study.Due to their experience teaching struggling readers, coaches were selected from outside school districts.Three of the five coaches had prior experience as literacy coaches, two held literacy coach certification and four were doctorate students.The coaches averaged 11.5 years of teaching experience (range of 3-20 years).All participant coaches worked with kindergarten teachers for a minimum of one year.
Before working with a participating teacher, each coach underwent a 5-day intensive coach training program.Coaches were taught coaching methodology and TRI content.When coaches attained a sufficient level of proficiency in both TRI instruction and coaching methods, they were certified as TRI coaches and began working with the teachers.Throughout the study, coaches received ongoing training and mentoring from the intervention director who was also served as the lead coach.

Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected from multiple sources as is typical within a case study design (Yin, 2018).Rigorous qualitative data collection necessitates a search for disconfirming evidence.Morrow (2005) suggested that comparing disconfirming cases with confirming cases helps to ensure adequate data collection and increases the likelihood of comprehending the complexities of studied phenomenon.Therefore, this study collected data over the course of two years through in-depth semi-structured interviews with participating teachers and coaches (11 interviews total; interviews lasted an average of 65 minutes), observations of recorded coaching sessions (first and last coaching sessions with six teachers over two years = 24 video recorded sessions), and field notes.Interviews, observations and fieldnotes were transcribed verbatim, saved as Microsoft Word files, then loaded into a qualitative analysis software tool (ATLAS.TI).
In accordance with Miles et al. (2018) analytic criteria, the data were thoroughly reviewed.Analysis consisted of applying emotional and instructional a priori codes to coach feedback responses.The a priori codes were derived from a previous pilot study related to coach feedback behaviors wherein a group of five researchers created a coach feedback code system after observing and evaluating over 200 coaching sessions with coach teacher dyads (Ginsberg, et al., 2012).This code system featured 14 codes related to coach feedback; seven codes represented emotional coach feedback during live coaching sessions and seven codes represented instructional coach feedback during live coaching sessions (see Table 2).

Coach guides and supports problem solving
I'm hearing this is not a good time for you for the coaching session.
When is a better time?
Coach explains a TRI strategy Remember, when you do Read Write Say, the teacher writes the word initially, but the student reads it, then writes it, then says it again.

Coach gives instructional advice broadly
When you do the TRI, you want to make sure your student knows the routine, like where the marker goes, where the tiles go, where the eraser goes.Think about practicing just those things before you do the TRI lesson.
Coach explains to teacher why implementing the TRI is important I know you really want to see your kids accelerate in reading -and the TRI can really help with that.

Intercoder Reliability
The coding of the data for this study was the responsibility of a primary and secondary coder.The secondary coder assessed 20% of the gathered data.The two coders discussed and clarified codes following the initial coding and repeated the process.After two rounds of coding, the intercoder reliability was 0.90.

Trustworthiness
Throughout the study, research team members adhered to specific protocols to facilitate the trustworthiness of the data collection, analyses and findings.Member checking, peer debriefing, source triangulation (interviews, observations, and field notes), and sensitive and fair representation of the participants were incorporated to enhance the credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability of the findings (Brantlinger et al., 2005;Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Participant protection measures such as informed consent and inviting participants to confirm transcriptions and conclusions during member checking, were incorporated to demonstrate respect for the participants and acknowledgement of their experiences.To improve naturalistic generalizability, demographic information about participants and detailed accounts of their experiences are provided.

Findings
The data analysis led to the finding that during first live TRI coaching sessions, literacy coaches provided a different type of feedback responses to low-implementing teachers than they provided to high-implementing teachers.During the first year and first coaching sessions, coaches perceived teachers as either high or low implementers.It is important for the reader to note, that prior to these first coaching sessions, coaches had only interacted with teachers during the three-day teacher institute.Therefore, the coach had somehow formed perceptions of whether a teacher would be a low or high implementer.According to their perceptions, they provided feedback (i.e., provided twice as much instructional feedback responses to perceived low implementers and more emotional feedback responses to perceived high implementers).

Year One of the Study
During first live TRI coaching sessions with low-implementing teacher participants, four out of five of the literacy coaches provided at least twice as much instructional feedback responses as emotional feedback responses.In contrast, during the first live TRI coaching sessions with high-implementing teacher participants, literacy coaches provided more emotional feedback responses than instructional feedback responses (see Table 3).To illustrate this difference, we will examine one coach's feedback to four different teachers.When first coaching sessions were compared across all coaches and teachers the first year, this pattern remained constant.All of the coaches in the study provided their perceived low-implementing teachers at least twice as much instructional support as emotional support during first coaching sessions during the first year.

Year Two of the Study
In year two of the study, coaches understood whether teachers were in fact high implementers or low implementers because the number of coaching sessions in which teachers participated across the first year were recorded.It is noteworthy, that when coach Drew began coaching low implementer, Ms. Frank and high implementer, Ms. Latta, in the second year, the patterns of feedback followed the other coaches.).This may have been due to the fact Coach Camila was the lead coach in the study and provided training to all the coaches.Coach Camila also provided feedback to the coaches as well and would have been aware of the coach-teacher dyads and their relationships.
By the end of the second year, literacy coaches provided both high-implementing and low-implementing teachers either more emotional feedback responses than instructional feedback responses or much more balanced feedback responses (see Table 4).Also of note, coaches provided lower feedback responses overall by the end of the second year of the study.

Discussion
In the first year of the study, the low implementing teachers participated in five or less TRI sessions with coaches.Low implementing teachers not only received more feedback in general, but the feedback they received was primarily what they needed to do to improve.It is possible, that the type and quantity of feedback provided to low implementing teachers exacerbated their resistance.
Teachers may resist instructional feedback if they receive too much information at once (Hattie, 2012).When coaches provide too much feedback at one time, teachers may become overwhelmed and may not be equipped to implement all the instruction they received.Teachers may be unsure where to begin and they may feel incapable of meeting all the coach's demands.Wiggins (2012) notes that feedback must be provided in a user-friendly way with information tailored to the understanding and implementation level of the individual.Recognizing the level of understanding is critical in providing feedback.Hattie & Timperley (2007) recommend that coaches employ instruction in lieu of feedback when they observe little understanding in low implementing students.Feedback, they assert, is only effective when an individual understands what they are doing and what is expected of them.When those foundational pieces are missing, feedback is ineffective at best and emotionally damaging at worst (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
The type of feedback provided is also key.In this study, initially high implementing teachers received significantly higher levels of emotional feedback than the low implementing teachers.Research suggests that feedback provided by literacy coaches to teachers can result in resistance for multiple reasons.
Teachers may feel that feedback from coaches compromises their classroom autonomy, or they may perceive that their professional judgment is being questioned as coaches ask teachers to adjust their practices (Valoyes-Chávez, 2019).
Coaches' suggestions for improvement may be seen as criticism by teachers and defensiveness and resistance may result (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017).Teachers may also resist literacy coach feedback if it contradicts their teaching style (Cutrer-Párraga et al., 2021).Teachers may likewise become resistant to coaches' feedback if they lack the time to execute the suggested adjustments to their teaching practices (Jacobs et al., 2018;Orlando, 2014).In addition, teachers who do not trust their literacy coach may resist feedback, even if it is well-intended (Wiggins, 2012).
It is important to note that over the course of the study, the low implementing teachers became high implementing teachers.At the end of the second year, low implementing teachers participated in almost three times as many coaching sessions as their first year (see table 5).Several factors may have influenced the change in implementation, including more time within the intervention and a change in coaches for two of the teachers.Interestingly, the type of literacy coach feedback provided in year two indicated a balance between emotional and instructional feedback.This balanced approach to feedback may have contributed to changes in implementation.The increase in emotional feedback could have allowed teachers to better understand what they were doing well, and the decreased proportion of instructional feedback might have allowed the teachers to attend to specific, achievable areas of improvement without feeling overwhelmed.The findings in the study describe how instructional and emotional feedback were provided to teachers during literacy instruction.As is typical in qualitative analysis, the findings are not strictly generalizable.Readers should utilize naturalistic generalizability in exploring how similar contexts and constructs could produce similar outcomes.Additionally, this study was part of a much larger research project where outside professionals were coaching teachers in school settings.Future research may wish to explore how instructional and emotional feedback are provided by in-school literacy coaches.Future research may wish to quantify the influence of feedback practices in the overall performance of literacy teachers.

Recommendations
School systems, teachers, and coaches seeking to enhance instructional practices through coaching and feedback could benefit from attending to feedback type and feedback amount.Reliance on instructional feedback alone may inadvertently contribute to and increase resistance in learners.Coaches would do well to avoid too much feedback as an abundance of feedback can overwhelm learners.Additionally, coaches should ensure feedback matches the understanding of the learner.Of note, coaches should understand the need to balance emotional and instructional feedback.Shannon et al, (2021) explained that instructional (constructive) feedback allows learners to know how to implement an intervention with fidelity while emotional (supportive) feedback provides the learner context for what is going well.Both are necessary and an important part of providing effective feedback.Coaches may benefit from additional training on developing and delivering emotional feedback within coaching sessions (Cutrer-Párraga & Miller, 2022;Shannon et al., 2021).
Additionally, Coaches should establish a positive and supportive relationship with teachers and encourage teachers to share their perspectives as well (Cutrer-Párraga et al., 2021).This relationship building provides a foundation for later instructional and emotional feedback.As needed, coaches should deliver feedback in a way that is collaborative, reflective, and respectful (Cutrer-Párraga et al., 2022;Cutrer-Párraga & Miller, 2022;Keiler et al., 2020), ensuring the feedback is specific, actionable, and targeted to the teacher's needs.

Limitations and Future Research
The findings in the study describe how instructional and emotional feedback were provided to teachers during literacy instruction.As is typical in qualitative analysis, the findings are not strictly generalizable.Readers should utilize naturalistic generalizability in exploring how similar contexts and constructs could produce similar outcomes.Additionally, this study was part of a much larger research project where outside professionals were coaching teachers in school settings.Future research may wish to explore how instructional and emotional feedback are provided by in-school literacy coaches.Future research may wish to quantify the influence of feedback practices in the overall performance of literacy teachers.

Conclusion
Feedback is an important part of teacher development in coaching.This study found that instructional and emotional feedback seemed to be related to the teacher's implementation status which might have resulted in increased resistance.
Coaches providing feedback should attend to providing a balance of both emotional and instructional feedback.In doing so, coaches can establish a positive and supportive relationship.

Figure 1 .
Figure1.Coach Betta's first coaching session with perceived high and low implementing teachers However, this pattern did not continue in first coaching sessions where coach Betta provided feedback responses to perceived high implementing teachers.For perceived high implementer Ms. Nance, coach Betta provided more balanced feedback with emotional feedback responses coming out slightly higher (emotional feedback responses n=38; instructional feedback responses n=36).This pattern of more balanced feedback seems to follow when coach Betta provided perceived high-implementing teacher, Ms. Latta feedback responses during the first coaching session.Coach Betta provided perceived high implementer, Ms. Latta, 27 emotional feedback responses and 26 instructional feedback responses, resulting in more even support overall for Ms. Latta, as a perceived high-implementing teacher.Additionally, coach Betta provided specific positive praise only to the perceived high-implementing teachers.

Table 1 .
Teacher Participant Demographics

Table 2 .
Types of Feedback Provided Coach models a TRI strategy Let me show you how to do Segmenting Words.Notice how I actually have the child pull down the sound tiles and have them say the sounds as they pull the tile down to the lined space.
Coach builds rapport with teacherHow was your week?You said you were going to have parent teacher conferences -how did they go?Coach offers teacher gratitude I know you have a lot going on with your class right now, I really appreciate you meeting with me.Coach praises teacher Your pacing through the word work was incredible!Coach offers specific positive feedback to teacher I noticed when Erica missed the /l/ sound in the word splat, you got out your blending card and had her blend the /s/ then the /l/ then add /a/ and /t/.Finally she could say splat!That was a perfect example of "blend as you go!" Coach shares personal information with the teacher Yes -it is finals right now -I am just hoping to survive!Ugghh!You have a daughter here right now right?How is she doing with her finals?Instructional Feedback to Teachers Coach answers, asks, or relays information about the intervention So how many times did you implement [the intervention] this week with Meili?Coach guides teacher in diagnosing student's most pressing need Okay so I'm noticing that Sammy is able to segment words well.Which word work activity do you feel is better for him now?

Table 3 .
Type of coach feedback responses during first coaching sessions with teachers teacher Ms. Harley as she provided emotional feedback responses (n=37).Of note, coach Betta provided advice to Ms. Harley 47 times during this initial 15-minute coaching session.See figures 1 for a visual representation of the feedback provided by coach Betta.
Meaning, coach Drew provided double the instructional feedback responses to low implementer Ms. Frank (emotional feedback responses n=18; instructional feedback responses n=36) in the first coaching session.And, following the pattern, coach Drew provided high emotional feedback responses to high implementer, Ms. Latta (emotional feedback responses n=36; instructional feedback responses n=24).only outlier was coach Camila in the second year.Coach Camila began coaching low implementer, Ms. Harley and high implementer, Ms. Nance in the second year.Coach Camila provided much more emotional feedback responses to low implementer Ms. Harley during the first coaching sessions (emotional feedback responses n=68; instructional feedback responses n=24

Table 4 .
Type of coach feedback response during last coaching sessions with teachers Shannon et al. (2021)noted that the existence of emotional, or supportive, feedback empowered teachers to know what they were doing well as they implemented a new program.This key information provides context for what to continue doing and reinforces teacher confidence.Given the lack of emotional feedback, low implementing teachers in this study may not have had enough support to recognize the good work and progress they were making.Low implementation, or resistance, observed in this study may also have been tied to the overwhelming amount and type of feedback the low implementing teachers received.In first coaching sessions, the low implementers received higher numbers of feedback responses overall.For example, coach Betta coached two teams of high and low implementers at the same schools.In interviews, coach Betta talked about the shorter coaching time available to her at Ms. Frank and Ms. Latta's school.Even with that limited time frame, coach Betta still provided Ms. Frank 66 feedback responses whilst she provided Ms. Latta 55 feedback responses.At a different school with a broader time frame, coach Betta provided Ms. Harley 115 feedback responses whilst she provided Ms. Nance 74 feedback responses.The high number of feedback responses combined with the type of feedback (primarily instruction feedback for low implementing teachers) likely overpowered the teachers and doubtless led to resistance.

Table 5 .
Number of coaching sessions per year