The Role of External and Internal Team Coaches in Teacher Design Teams. A Mixed Methods Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- To what extent do external and internal team coaches of TDTs differ in their coaching activities?
- To what extent is there an interaction between the support provided by team coaches and the team learning process?
- To what extent is there an interaction between the support provided by team coaches and the outcomes of a TDT trajectory?
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Team Coach
2.2. Team Learning
2.3. Outcomes
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Context
3.2. Research Design
3.2.1. Quantitative Phase
Instrument
Sample
Data Analysis
3.2.2. Qualitative Phase
Interviews
Sample
Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Coaching Activities of External and Internal Team Coaches
4.1.1. Quantitative
4.1.2. Qualitative
You need to ensure that, especially in the beginning, there is a comfortable, safe space, wherein people can collaborate. The eventual outcomes may only be of secondary importance. It is especially the collaboration, the group dynamic, that is essential. Because that is a precondition to take further steps in the future.—Coach A
It goes with the flow […]. I think that I try to give input when necessary, and for the rest, I give a lot of trust to the people I work with. I now had a group where I could exert influence. That is not always the case. Sometimes you have to invest longer in a group to be allowed to guide them. And here we had a pretty good match, so that could be done fast […]. But to say that this is a style I have, I think it goes pretty naturally. It is not a conscious choice.—Coach G
4.2. Coaching Activities and Team Learning
4.3. Coaching Activities and Outcome Variables
4.4. Interaction between External and Internal Coaches
4.4.1. Quantitative
4.4.2. Qualitative
5. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kalinowskia, E.; Egert, F.; Gronostaja, A.; Vock, M. Professional development on fostering students’ academic language proficiency across the curriculum. A meta-analysis of its impact on teachers’ cognition and teaching practices. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2020, 88, 102971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avalos, B. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll, L.; Bolam, R.; McMahon, A.; Wallace, M.; Thomas, S. Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. J. Educ. Chang. 2006, 7, 221–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shipley, W. Examining Teacher Collaboration in a Kindergarten Building: A Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Vangrieken, K.; Dochy, F.; Raes, E.; Kyndt, E. Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 15, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diehl, D. The multiplexity of professional learning communities: Exploring the co-evolution of teacher social networks. Res. Pap. Educ. 2019, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rone, B.C. The Impact of the Data Team Structure on Collaborative Teams and Student Achievement. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, Lindenwood University Saint Charles, St Charles, MO, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Vescio, V.; Ross, D.; Adams, A. A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2008, 24, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binkhorst, F. Connecting the Dots: Supporting the Implementation of Teacher Design Teams. Ph.D. Thesis, Drienerlolaan, The Netherland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Handelzalts, A. Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Voogt, J.; Laferrière, T.; Breuleux, A.; Itow, R.C.; Hickey, D.T.; McKenney, S. Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instr. Sci. 2015, 43, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakah, M.A.B.; Voogt, J.M.; Pieters, J.M. Updating polytechnic teachers’ knowledge and skills through teacher design teams in Ghana. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2012, 38, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bliss, C.M.; Wanless, S.B. Development and initial investigation of a self-report measure of teachers’ readiness to implement. J. Educ. Chang. 2018, 19, 269–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zembylas, M. Teacher emotions in the context of educational reforms. In Second International Handbook of Educational Change; Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D., Eds.; Springer International Handbooks of Education: Belin, Germany, 2010; pp. 221–236. [Google Scholar]
- Cviko, A.; McKenney, S.; Voogt, J. The teacher as re-designer of technology integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2013, 48, 447–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geijsel, F.; Sleegers, P.; Berg, R.V.d.; Kelchtermans, G. Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educ. Adm. Q. 2001, 37, 130–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormick, J.; Ayres, P.; Beechey, B. Teaching self-efficacy, stress and coping in a major curriculum reform. Applying theory to context. J. Educ. Adm. 2006, 44, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ransford, C.R.; Greenberg, M.T.; Domitrovich, C.E.; Small, M.; Jacobson, L. The role of teachers’ psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 38, 510–532. [Google Scholar]
- Becuwe, H.; Roblin, N.P.; Tondeur, J.; Thys, J.; Castelein, E.; Voogt, J. Conditions for the successful implementation of teacher educator design teams for ICT integration: A Delphi study. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 33, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zboralski, K. Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. J. Knowl. Manag. 2009, 13, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ortquist-Ahrens, L.; Torosyan, R. The role of the facilitator in faculty learning comunities: Paving the way for growth, productivity, and collegiality. Learn. Communities J. 2009, 1, 29–62. [Google Scholar]
- Huizinga, T.; Handelzalts, A.; Nieveen, N.; Voogt, J.M. Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. J. Curric. Stud. 2014, 46, 33–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kocolowski, M.D. Shared leadership: Is it time for a change. Emerg. Leadersh. Journeys 2010, 3, 22–32. [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, A.; Bartol, K.M.; Locke, E.A. Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 1239–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wallace, M. Sharing leadership of schools through teamwork: A justifiable risk? Educ. Manag. Adm. 2001, 29, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenger, E. Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Syst. Think. 1998, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Bergman, J.Z.; Rentsch, J.R.; Small, E.E.; Davenport, S.W.; Bergman, S.M. The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 152, 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, J.B.; Tesluk, P.E.; Marrone, J.A. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 1217–1234. [Google Scholar]
- Becuwe, H.; Tondeur, J.; Roblin, N.P.; Thys, J.; Castelein, E. Teacher design teams as a strategy for professional development: The role of the facilitator. Int. J. Theory Pract. 2016, 22, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mayer, A.P.; Grenier, R.S.; Warhol, L.; Donaldson, M. Making a change: The role of external coaches in school-based communities of practice. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2013, 24, 337–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamlin, R.G.; Ellinger, A.D.; Beattie, R.S. The emergent ‘coaching industry’: A wake-up call for HRD professionals. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2008, 11, 287–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sue-Chan, C.; Latham, G.P. The relative effectiveness of expert, peer and self coaches. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 53, 260–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, C.L. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2004, 18, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, K.; Eastin, S.; Calcagno, B.; Wilhelm, S.; Gill, A. Examining the effects of internal versus external coaching on preschool teachers’ implementation of a framework of evidence-based social-emotional practices. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, M.R.; Glasson, S. Revitalising professional learning for experienced principals: Energy versus ennui. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2019, 47, 887–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binkhorst, F.; Poortman, C.L.; McKenney, S.E.; van Joolingen, W.R. Revealing the balancing act of vertical and shared leadership in Teacher Design Teams. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 72, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, C.L.; Sims, H.P., Jr. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2002, 6, 172–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yukl, G.; Gordon, A.; Taber, T. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2002, 9, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgeson, F.P.; DeRue, D.S.; Karam, E.P. Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 5–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gormley, H.; Nieuwerburgh, C.V. Developing coaching cultures: A review of the literature. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 2014, 7, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, A.M.; Hartley, M. Developing the leader as coach: Insights, strategies and tips for embedding coaching skills in the workplace. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 2013, 6, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkerman, S.; Petter, C.; Laat, M.D. Organising communities-of-practice: Facilitating emergence. J. Workplace Learn. 2008, 20, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schelfhout, W.; Sprangers, P.; Lochten, L.; Vanthournout, G.; Buckinx, A. Team School: Leergemeenschappen Creëren in Onderwijs; Uitgeverij LannooCampus: Leuven, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Petrone, M.C.; Ortquist-Ahrens, L. Facilitating faculty learning communities: A compact guide to creating change and inspiring community. In Building Faculty Learning Communities; Cox, M.D., Richlin, L., Eds.; New Directions for Teaching and Learning; Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Barron, B. When smart groups fail. J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12, 307–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Bossche, P.; Gijselaers, W.H.; Segers, M.; Kirschner, P.A. Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments. Team Learning Beliefs and Behaviors. Small Group Res. 2006, 37, 490–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Decuyper, S.; Dochy, F.; van den Bossche, P. Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educ. Res. Rev. 2010, 5, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmonson, A.C. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches; Kramer, R.M., Cook, K.S., Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 239–272. [Google Scholar]
- Vegt, G.V.d.; Emans, B.; Vliert, E.V.d. Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group Organ. Manag. 1998, 23, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gully, S.M.; Incalcaterra, K.A.; Joshi, A.; Beaubien, J.M. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 819–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Voogt, J.; Westbroek, H.; Handelzalts, A.; Walraven, A.; McKenney, S.; Pieters, J.; De Vries, B. Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 1235–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ivankova, N.V.; Creswell, J.W.; Stick, S.L. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods 2006, 18, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Applied Social Research Methods Series; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Biemann, T.; Cole, M.S.; Voelpel, S. Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. Leadersh. Q. 2012, 23, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raes, E.; Kyndt, E.; Decuyper, S.; van den Bossche, P.; Dochy, F. An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2015, 26, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, L.R.; Demaree, R.G.; Wolf, G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 1984, 69, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, W.C. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 4th ed.; Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P., Wholey, J.S., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 492–505. [Google Scholar]
- Geer, J.G. Do open-ended questions measure salient” issues? Public Opin. Q. 1991, 55, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richman, W.L.; Kiesler, S.; Weisband, S.; Drasgow, F. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 754–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, J.D. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Coded Category | Description | % of Respondents | Representative Qualitative Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Background characteristics internal team coaches | ||||
Background—coaching or TDT experience | References to prior experience of the team coach with participation in PLCs, (PLC) coaching, and experience/background in teaching in general | N.A. 100% | External Internal | “I was already a member of the learning communities before they… in previous years they called them PLCs […]. I did that for two years.” |
Perceived coaching competences | References to the extent to which the team coach felt competent to take on this role | N.A. 100% | External Internal | “In that regard I didn’t find myself competent, because in the introductory session I was like, wow, I can never turn all that negative energy in my role as team coach.” |
Initial self-efficacy | References to the extent to which the team coach felt self-confident to implement the new learning standards, before the start of the trajectory | N.A. 75% | External Internal | “When we saw the first draft of the new learning standards, and the transversal ones, and the key competences. We were all like, what is this?” |
Goals—reasons participation | References to team coaches’ goals or reasons for participating in the trajectory | N.A. 100% | External Internal | “I do not have a permanent job. So it seemed smart to also become important within my own school in this way.” |
Coaching activities | ||||
Goal-oriented coaching | ||||
Goal setting | References to how the team coach influenced the process of determining the goal/focus of material | 50% 75% | External Internal | “I knew, I had a pretty good idea on what I wanted. I wanted a tool that was usable in multiple contexts. And I have been able to pitch that idea.” |
Focus on goal | References to how the team coach kept the TDT focused on reaching its goals | 50% 50% | External Internal | “Yes, I have tried to keep the team members focused. Because it easily becomes a chatty café. So get back to the point.” |
Content-wise coaching | ||||
Guarding quality | References to how the team coach guarded the quality of material that was being developed | 67% 38% | External Internal | “I have tried to always adjust in the right direction, and to think critically. I have a good feeling about that, let’s state it like that.” |
Expertise | References to knowledge transfer by the team coach in general, and the provision of information on the new curriculum in specific | 67% 38% | External Internal | “Every now and then there was a need for information, and then I took on the role of the pedagogical expert, the advisor.” |
Co-creating content | References to the extent to which the team coach co-developed material | 33% 75% | External Internal | “I realised […] I am not solely going to focus on guiding the other two teachers. And then I started to also develop material myself.” |
Organisational coaching | ||||
Task division—agreements—communication between meetings | References to how the team coach divided tasks and made agreements, references to how the coach ensured that these were obeyed, and references to the coach taking care of the communication in between physical meetings | 50% 38% | External Internal | “So then I took the report. Okay, today we need to work on this and that. Then we split up into two groups and came back together after three hours.” |
Group-dynamic coaching | ||||
Convince–motivate for TDT task | References to events where the team coach strived to convince the team members of the relevance of the trajectory and references to events where the coach encouraged team members’ overall motivation | 50% 38% | External Internal | “And then it is my job to try to motivate them to still collaborate. Which is not always so easy.” |
Being understanding—listening | References to how the team coach dealt with both personal and professional concerns within the TDT | 50% 50% | External Internal | “Another person e-mailed us that he was dealing with rough emotional problems. With a divorce. Understandable. He also sent that e-mail to the external coach. And we both responded in the same way.” |
Adaptive coaching | References to team coaches’ attempts to adapt their coaching activities to the needs of the TDT | 50% 50% | External Internal | “So I think that it is a personal style. To first observe and… If I feel we are not getting anywhere, to take the lead.” |
Interaction coach types | ||||
Training trajectory—support in coaching | References to the extent to which internal team coaches felt supported by the external team coach, and references to the training trajectory of the internal coaches | N.A. 100% | External Internal | “So we received the training by OVSG. And I was pretty satisfied with that actually.” |
Emergence internal coach | References to the extent to which one of the team members took the lead during the trajectory | 83% N.A. | External Internal | “Also, there was someone who started demonstrating leadership” |
Coach multiple TDTs | References to cases of (external) team coaches supervising multiple TDTs | 67% N.A. | External Internal | “The switching between groups, it makes you feel like an octopus” |
Combined | External | Internal | t | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||
Team coach | |||||||
Goal-oriented coaching | 3.86 | 0.64 | 3.78 | 0.67 | 4.06 | 0.51 | −1.61 |
Content-wise coaching | 3.85 | 0.59 | 3.78 | 0.58 | 4.01 | 0.60 | −1.41 |
Organisational coaching | 3.90 | 0.69 | 3.78 | 0.75 | 4.18 | 0.42 | −2.18 * |
Group-dynamic coaching | 4.32 | 0.53 | 4.27 | 0.58 | 4.43 | 0.41 | −1.07 |
Adaptive coaching | 3.72 | 0.71 | 3.63 | 0.76 | 3.95 | 0.53 | −1.69 |
Team learning | |||||||
Team learning beliefs | |||||||
Psychological safety | 4.16 | 0.39 | 4.08 | 0.40 | 4.34 | 0.29 | −2.61 * |
Interdependence | 4.10 | 0.40 | 4.06 | 0.39 | 4.18 | 0.42 | −1.17 |
Social cohesion | 3.94 | 0.38 | 3.94 | 0.42 | 3.93 | 0.28 | 0.09 |
Task cohesion | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.59 | 0.74 | 3.95 | 0.24 | −2.08 * |
Group potency | 3.67 | 0.31 | 3.64 | 0.32 | 3.74 | 0.30 | −1.13 |
Team learning behaviours | |||||||
Construction | 4.24 | 0.37 | 4.18 | 0.39 | 4.39 | 0.25 | −2.09 * |
Co-construction | 4.12 | 0.31 | 4.06 | 0.33 | 4.25 | 0.21 | −2.25 * |
Constructive conflict | 4.10 | 0.36 | 4.04 | 0.40 | 4.23 | 0.22 | −1.95 |
Mutually shared cognition | 3.75 | 0.48 | 3.73 | 0.45 | 3.82 | 0.55 | −0.67 |
Outcomes | |||||||
Team effectiveness | 3.86 | 0.53 | 3.80 | 0.52 | 3.99 | 0.53 | −1.28 |
Quality of material | 3.80 | 0.48 | 3.85 | 0.45 | 3.68 | 0.54 | 1.29 |
General evaluation (i) | 3.68 | 1.06 | 3.75 | 1.04 | 3.53 | 1.12 | 0.77 |
Self-efficacy reform (i) | 3.90 | 0.60 | 3.97 | 0.66 | 3.74 | 0.43 | 1.43 |
Change in self-efficacy (i) | 0.69 | 1.01 | 0.69 | 1.09 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.06 |
N | 63 | 44 | 19 | 63 |
Panel A: Correlations between Coaching and Team Learning | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N = 63 | Goal-oriented coaching | Content-wise coaching | Organisational coaching | Group-dynamic coaching | Adaptive coaching |
Team learning | |||||
Team learning beliefs | |||||
Psychological safety | 0.736 *** | 0.515 *** | 0.731 *** | 0.881 *** | 0.706 *** |
Interdependence | 0.571 *** | 0.337 ** | 0.526 *** | 0.606 *** | 0.367 ** |
Social cohesion | 0.387 ** | 0.170 | 0.136 | 0.502 *** | 0.339 ** |
Task cohesion | 0.733 *** | 0.537 *** | 0.713 *** | 0.697 *** | 0.698 *** |
Group potency | 0.671 *** | 0.639 *** | 0.640 *** | 0.736 *** | 0.491 *** |
Team learning behaviours | |||||
Construction | 0.700 *** | 0.564 *** | 0.677 *** | 0.688 *** | 0.509 *** |
Co-construction | 0.546 *** | 0.369 ** | 0.432 *** | 0.558 *** | 0.219 |
Constructive conflict | 0.443 *** | 0.157 | 0.327 ** | 0.430 *** | 0.185 |
Mutually shared cognition | 0.378 ** | 0.194 | 0.234 | 0.392 ** | 0.567 *** |
Panel B: Correlations between coaching and outcomes | |||||
N = 63 | Goal-oriented coaching | Content-wise coaching | Organisational coaching | Group-dynamic coaching | Adaptive coaching |
Outcomes | |||||
Team effectiveness | 0.403 *** | 0.287 * | 0.264 * | 0.571 *** | 0.300 * |
Quality of material | 0.481 *** | 0.503 *** | 0.404 *** | 0.310 *** | 0.344 ** |
General evaluation (i) | 0.218 | 0.203 | 0.217 | 0.290 * | 0.164 |
Self-efficacy reform (i) | −0.002 | 0.032 | −0.067 | −0.048 | −0.111 |
Change in self-efficacy (i) (N = 43) | 0.195 | 0.068 | 0.225 | 0.238 | 0.219 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Compen, B.; Schelfhout, W. The Role of External and Internal Team Coaches in Teacher Design Teams. A Mixed Methods Study. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100263
Compen B, Schelfhout W. The Role of External and Internal Team Coaches in Teacher Design Teams. A Mixed Methods Study. Education Sciences. 2020; 10(10):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100263
Chicago/Turabian StyleCompen, Boukje, and Wouter Schelfhout. 2020. "The Role of External and Internal Team Coaches in Teacher Design Teams. A Mixed Methods Study" Education Sciences 10, no. 10: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100263