Discourse Within the Interactional Space of Literacy Coaching

Abstract

Reviews of literacy coaching show positive outcomes for teaching and learning, yet also that coaching’s impact varies widely, especially at increased scale. Thus, some scholars argue the quality of coaching interactions may matter more than broad coaching actions (e.g., co-planning, observing). Situated within Habermas’s notion of “public sphere”, we used discourse analysis to examine video-recorded pre- and post-interviews, coaching meetings, and coach retrospective think-aloud protocols of a literacy coach and elementary school teacher who described their partnership as “successful”. We examined participants’ values expressed about coaching; how each participant positioned themselves, each other, and the coaching context; and the nature of the coach–teacher discourse therein to answer the following question: what occurs in the interactional space between a coach and teacher when engaged in coaching meetings? We found four categories of values focused on participatory choice, their sense of connectedness, knowledge development, and their approach to working with/as a coach. Further, participants’ positionings signified agency for both the coach and teachers in the interactional space. While bracketing and leveraging their own authority, the coach’s language choices promoted teachers’ agency within the interactional space, providing insight into how language functions to shape the “public sphere” of coaching interactions.

1. Introduction

Studies of literacy coaching attest to its positive influence on teaching and learning (Kraft et al., 2018; Sailors et al., 2017). For example, Matsumura and colleagues (Correnti et al., 2020; Matsumura et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2020) found content-focused coaching improved teachers’ knowledge of text discussion quality, increased instructional uptake in practices that supported dialogic instruction, and predicted significantly higher student achievement. Relatedly, Sailors and Price (2010, 2015) found coaching interactions with teachers in grades 2–8 significantly improved teachers’ intentional instruction of cognitive strategies and increased the number of opportunities teachers provided to students to use strategies. Moreover, student outcomes on measures of reading comprehension significantly improved. Broadly, the collected findings of coaching studies suggest teachers’ knowledge of instructional strategies and self-efficacy in implementation appropriately and efficiently improves with coaching (Egert et al., 2018; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017), at least among groups of teachers within the school (e.g., Walpole et al., 2010; Marsh et al., 2012), and that student outcomes can improve when teachers work with coaches (e.g., Allen et al., 2015; Biancarosa et al., 2010; Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011; Irby et al., 2021).

Despite reported positive outcomes, Kraft et al. (2018), in a meta-analysis of instructional coaching studies (mostly involving literacy coaching), found that while coaching works, its impact varies widely. This variation is especially evident as the scale of the coaching initiative increases. Sailors et al. (2017) reported similar mixed outcomes in their meta-synthesis of 118 literacy coaching studies. Studies of literacy coaching have produced more neutral findings related to implementation of new practices (Troyer, 2017) and student outcomes (Marsh et al., 2012). Others have found that the efficacy of coaching was negatively impacted by implementation challenges, such as increasing the teachers’ work demands through individual coaching observation and feedback cycles (Diamond & Powell, 2011) and feelings of vulnerability in being observed (Robertson et al., 2020b; Hunt, 2016; Magnusson et al., 2023). Furthermore, studies report instances of teachers resisting opportunities to engage with coaches (Jacobs et al., 2018) or challenging the topics or practices brought forth by schools or in coaching conversations (Robertson et al., 2023).

These mixed outcomes have led some scholars (Kraft et al., 2018; Matsumura et al., 2019) to assert that the quality of coaching interactions may matter more than a combination of broad patterns of coaching actions (i.e., modeling, co-planning, observing). Given the profoundly social nature of literacy coaching, the field has yet to fully understand the complexities of why these coaching actions may or may not be successful. Recognizing coaching’s potential raises interesting points of inquiry about the relational dynamics between coaches and teachers. Such inquiry would elucidate what occurs in the interactional space of successful coaching interactions and how coach and teacher perceptions of and intentions align with how coaching interactions are enacted. Examining coach and teacher language can unpack the intricacies of what coaches say when engaged in co-planning, debriefing, or other activities to support teachers as they refine their instructional practices. Doing so may illustrate how coaches might support teachers in ways that empower them as learners while also fostering conditions that actuate agency in their teaching.

To better understand this interactional space, we examined interactions of one coach–teacher dyad self-described by each participant as “successful”. In interactions, people position themselves and others intentionally and unintentionally through their engagement in discursive practices, which we are operationalizing as oral language use between speakers in a conversation, and meanings are produced through those practices (Davies & Harré, 1990). By exploring language use, we can understand how language operates in relationships, how language practices influence relationships among people, and how language might structure our perceptions of our social contexts (Johnston, 2024). The dyad represented an established coaching relationship across multiple years; data for this study were collected over a three-month period (September–December) in one elementary school in the rural Mountain West, including pre- and post-interviews with both the teacher and the coach, and two coaching cycles (i.e., pre-observation meeting, classroom observation, post-observation meeting). Coaching was part of the typical school and district workings, not something brought forth for research. We examined three questions:

(1)

How did the coach and teacher define a successful coaching relationship?

(2)

How did the coach and teacher position themselves, each other, and the coaching context within the conversations?

(3)

How did the positionings of the coach and teacher manifest within the interactional space, and what characteristics define the nature of their talk during these interactions?

1.1. Review of the Literature

Current research on relational dynamics that foster successful coaching partnerships and uptake of new teaching practices is still emerging (Robertson et al., 2020b). However, it underscores the significance of analyzing the lived experiences and interactions that comprise these coaching relationships (e.g., Matsumura et al., 2019). These studies reveal the power dynamics and emotional complexities embedded in coach–teacher relationships, which can either facilitate or hinder teachers’ willingness to participate in coaching as well as instructional improvement.

Studies have examined the link between coaching discourse and the adoption of teaching practices. Heineke (2013) investigated the interactions of four reading specialists coaching elementary teachers. While the coaches largely dominated conversations—initiating most topics, suggesting follow-up actions, and contributing most utterances—teachers actively extended discussions by responding to the coaches’ comments and posing additional questions. Similarly, Collet (2012) studied three coaches working with 46 pre-service and in-service teachers in a literacy clinic. The findings demonstrated a shift in coaching approaches as teachers’ instructional skills advanced. Initially focused on explanation and modeling, coaching discourse evolved into collaborative problem-solving and co-construction of ideas.

Other relational studies highlight how emotional experiences tied to teaching and professional identities affect coaching interactions. For example, Hunt (2016) employed a microethnographic discourse analysis to explore how emotions were enacted during real-time literacy coaching interactions and their impact on outcomes. Observing interactions among two coaches, nine teachers, two administrators, and two district facilitators, Hunt found that coaching often prioritized strict implementation of prescribed “best practices” (p. 340) over context-sensitive teaching inquiry or teacher expertise. Consequently, coaching conversations focused heavily on the sanctioned instructional model, leaving little room for teachers to express concerns or demonstrate agency over their teaching methods.

Researchers have also explored the negotiation of identities, positioning, and orientations towards teaching and learning in literacy coaching by examining how coaches and teachers navigate professional roles, power dynamics, and personal beliefs within collaborative relationships (Cantrell et al., 2024; Green, 2024). This negotiation is crucial because identities shape how individuals perceive themselves and others in the learning process, and orientations influence interactions, decision-making, instructional practices, and long-term commitments to professional growth (Haneda et al., 2019). Studies reveal that literacy coaches often grapple with balancing their identities as teachers, collaborators, and evaluators (e.g., Jones & Rainville, 2014; Skinner et al., 2014) and have explored how coaches and teachers negotiate authority and shared ownership of instructional decisions. Further, this multifaceted role requires maintaining credibility and fostering trust (Finkelstein, 2019).

While large-scale studies have broadly shown that literacy coaching is a powerful mechanism for driving instructional improvement, research remains limited regarding specific actions and behaviors that make coaching effective. Existing evidence suggests broad coaching structures, including sufficient duration and frequency, individual coaching sessions, and components like co-planning, demonstration, and debriefing. However, further interpretive studies are needed to build a broader consensus on the interactional spaces of coaching relationships that are successful to explicate the relationships between perceptions of success and enactments of coaching.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

Situated within a sociocultural view of learning (Vygotsky, 1934/1986), our analysis of the interactional space of coaching conversations draws on Habermas’s (1962/1989) and Fraser’s (1990) notions about the “public sphere”. According to Habermas, the public sphere is a space where people come together to deliberate about common affairs and interests through the production and circulation of discourses. Ideally, these interactions would be open and accessible to all who participate—a site where participation privileges speaking “in one’s own voice”, as Fraser said in their expansion on the concept of the public sphere (Fraser, 1990, p. 69).

However, in social interactions, competing interests and issues of power and positioning can make conversations contested, whether explicitly or tacitly. Whereas Habermas claims that elements of a person’s identity (e.g., profession or social class) may be set aside—or bracketed—as participants discuss topics of common interest, Fraser (1990) asserts these identities are never fully “bracketed” or “neutralized” (p. 60). This complexity rests in significant exclusions that, whether intentionally or not, influence how the discourse unfolds. For example, beliefs and values, gender identities, class distinctions, and other power hierarchies may be bracketed in pursuit of more neutrality, but they are never fully eliminated in the enactment of discourses.

In our work, the “public sphere” is the interactional space between the coach and the teacher in schools. Coaches and teachers interact in the broader ecosystem of classroom and school contexts that are influenced not only by their own experiences and beliefs, but also hierarchical powers such as school administration, community involvement, curricular resources and colleagues, and the interactions of teachers and students. The “common interest” in our analysis was focused on literacy teaching and learning that was negotiated by coach and teacher, but which was undoubtedly influenced by the other contextual or hierarchical factors present in the public sphere.

We used Habermas’s (1962/1989) and Fraser’s (1990) notions of the public sphere to examine the space in which teachers and coaches position themselves, one another, and their coaching context in pursuit of a common interest. Specifically, we analyzed a coach’s and teacher’s reported perceptions of coaching and the functions of language within the public sphere (i.e., coaching context) and how language might empower the actuation of agency within a relational coaching framework (Robertson et al., 2020b). We used Fraser’s (1990) understanding of social identity and the public sphere to examine how information and knowledge about literacy teaching and learning are produced and circulated, who has a say in that dialogue, to whom information is accessible and why, and who are the bearers or leaders of the “public opinion” about “common concerns” (Fraser, 1990, p. 70).

2. Materials and Methods

This qualitative study used discourse analysis to examine the interactional space of one elementary coach–teacher dyad over two coaching cycles. Drawing on the topical organization of talk and initiation (Wells, 1999) and discourse moves (Robertson et al., 2020a), positioning (Davies & Harré, 1990), Gee’s (2014) identities and relationships tools, and retrospective think-aloud protocols (Zhang & Zhang, 2019), we sought to understand how this coach and teacher each defined success in their coaching relationship, and how this relationship was enacted in the public sphere (Habermas, 1962/1989) of their coaching meetings. To answer research questions two and three, which pertained to participant values and positioning, we coded data thematically. To answer research question three, which asked how positionings and values manifest in the public sphere (i.e., coaching meetings), we conducted a discourse analysis by coding each transcript for episodes of talk and talk moves. Understanding the relational dynamics of coaching interactions will illuminate the lived experiences of coaches and teachers to better understand how these interactions can advance literacy teaching and learning.

2.1. Context

The study was set in a rural, Title1 elementary school in the Mountain West region of the United States over a four-month period (September–December). The school was comprised of approximately 250 students in grades Pre-K to 5, with 45% eligible for free or reduced lunch and enrollment by race/ethnicity reported as follows: 64% White; 31% Hispanic; and the remaining 5% as Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, or two or more races.

The district employed full-time instructional facilitators (herein referred to as coaches) to assist with teaching and assessment of students and provide professional development to the teachers. One coach was assigned to each of the six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the town proper. Surrounding remote schools outside of the corporate limits or in neighboring rural towns within the county had shared coaching support from one of the nine full-time coaches.

Coaches mostly provided one-on-one coaching support to teachers on a voluntary basis, following coaching cycles that included a meeting for goal setting and planning, an observation or modeling activity, and a post-meeting for debriefing. New teachers to the district were typically required to meet with their respective coach for at least one or two coaching cycles during their first year of employment. While coaches worked across subject areas, our focus here was literacy-focused coaching.

2.2. Participants

This study examined the perceptions and interactions of one coach, Kathy (all names are pseudonyms), and one third-grade teacher, Abby. Kathy identified as a white woman. She had 5 years of experience as a coach at the school, and 23 years of experience total in education across two school districts. Though this study is specific to literacy coaching, Kathy worked broadly as a coach across multiple disciplines with teachers in both individual and group settings across multiple district elementary schools. Abby also identified as a white woman. Abby had 13 years of experience as a third-grade teacher (15 years total in education) and had achieved professional status, or tenure, at the school. As such, though cycles of coaching were mandatory for some teachers at the school, Abby’s participation was voluntary.

2.3. Data Collection

Figure 1 provides a description of the data collection and analysis processes.

2.3.1. Pre-Interviews

To examine Kathy’s and Abby’s perceptions about coaching, each individually participated in semi-structured interviews with Dana. Questions asked how they each approached work in a coaching cycle and how they would describe their coach–teacher relationship. The pre-interview lasted 29:37 for Kathy and 17:26 for Abby.

2.3.2. Coaching Cycles

Coaching cycles constituted a public sphere (Habermas, 1962/1989) and were defined as the space in which discursive exchanges about literacy instructional goals or outcomes happened. Video-recordings of coach–teacher meetings (pre- and post-observation) lasted on average 27 min. Though classroom observations were part of the cycles, these were not recorded and transcribed for this study since the focus was on coach–teacher interactions in coaching meetings. However, artifacts (i.e., anecdotal notes, observation tools, and lesson plans) were collected and analyzed that captured the types of activities that were part of the observed lesson.

2.3.3. Coach Think-Aloud Protocols

After each meeting with Abby, Kathy video-recorded a retrospective think-aloud (Zhang & Zhang, 2019) in the days following where she watched the videorecording of the meeting and engaged in oral retrospective analysis, documenting what she was noticing (e.g., what was happening, what her intentions were, reflections on how the conversation went). Retrospective think-aloud recordings lasted on average 29 min.

2.3.4. Post-Interviews

Finally, Kathy and Abby individually participated in semi-structured interviews following the same format as those at the outset. The post-interview lasted 23:11 min for Kathy and 10:07 Abby.

2.4. Data Analysis

In this study, discourse referred to the oral language used to integrate the social identities of self and others (Gee, 2014). We used a combination of inductive and deductive discourse analysis (Davies & Harré, 1990; Gee, 2014; Robertson et al., 2020a; Wells, 1999) to ascertain (a) coach and teacher perceptions of successful coaching relationships, and (b) how each participant positioned themselves, each other, and the coaching context (e.g., school, district, and curricular requirements or practices) within the conversations.

Video recordings of the pre-interviews, coaching cycle meetings, and retrospective think-aloud protocols were transcribed verbatim by an external transcription service and reviewed for accuracy by Dana. Then, we engaged in collaborative coding of the transcripts, working sequentially from pre-interview through each coaching cycle and retrospective think-aloud to the post-interviews, one transcript at a time, to understand the trajectory of how the coaching work unfolded.

2.4.1. Interviews

We analyzed pre- and post-interviews to answer research question one, which sought to understand characteristics of a successful coaching relationship (see

Table 1. Coaching relationship value coding scheme.

Code	Definition	Example
Voluntary Participation (Both)	Initiation of and participation in coaching is voluntary for both coach and teacher	“So I guess I have the luxury of kind of feeling relationships out and seeing what that is so then—hey, do we want to have this conversation?”
Mutually Sought After Relationship (Teacher)	Coaching relationship is beneficial and important to both the coach and teacher	“it’s something that’s very mutually sought after for this coaching to happen. That she like enjoys coming in and getting to coach, and I enjoy having someone who is willing to coach”
Collaboration (Both)	Contributions come from both coach and teacher in discussion of outcomes and creation of materials	“…it was really positive and that it was very open—a very open collaboration, and we were able to just have some really good discussions about the learning and the teaching that the kids had”
Trust and Respect	Coach–teacher relationship is defined by the coach’s confidentiality and neutral assessment of teachers’ practices	“The respect and the trust between us is really important and probably the most important thing that…”
Flexible Coaching (Teacher)	Structure of coaching is adaptable to teachers’ needs and goals	“the way that Kay does coaching is very fluid and flexible depending on your need as a teacher. So it’s not like on this day we’re going to do a preconference, and then three days later I’m going to come watch you teach, and then three days later we’re going to do a post conference. It’s very flexible depending on what we’re doing…”
Long-Term Relationship (Both)	Coach–teacher relationship established over time that enables trust and respect	“the more I work with her, the closer we get and the more comfortable we are and the more we learn about how the other person works. And so we can have just better and better conversations as we go”
Access to Knowledge Base (Teacher)	Teachers have access to resources and rationale that guide coaching decisions.	“I think another hindrance could be just feeling like you don’t know enough about whatever initiative you’re going to try if you don’t have the knowledge base”
Pre-Planning	Coaching is guided by pre-determined goals established in planning meetings.	“We were able to meet and do some preplanning and have some conversations about lessons that were going to come up… And so that was really helpful and beneficial”
Generalizable Outcomes (Teacher)	Outcomes of coaching are not specific to one lesson, but rather are applied to teaching practices holistically.	“So when you’re coming in to watch my lesson and coming in to watch my—specifically student engagement—maybe even more specifically how the students interact with my questions and how they’re answering the questions. And then I can really, when you give me feedback on that specific thing, then I can do something with that for the next lesson”
Practice Approach to Coaching (Coach)	Coaching prioritizes teachers’ practices rather than student competencies and behaviors	“And it should never be about the kids… in this lesson, it shouldn’t be about, well, if the kids did this. No, it needs to be about Angela. What can Angela do to bring the kids whatever”
Horizontal Flow of Knowledge (Coach)	Coach–teacher relationship is defined by an equal sharing of knowledge and expertise	“I try and make the coach-ee a very equal part of it. I’m not coming in as an expert or—I’m just someone to hopefully bounce ideas off of and be able to point you in a direction to—or even just another set of eyes, because you can’t see everything”

), and research question two, which related to how Kathy and Abby each spoke about positioning of self, positioning of another, and positioning of the coaching context (see

Table 2. Positioning coding scheme.

Code	Definition	Example
Self as expert (both)	Teacher makes reference to her experience to invoke authority Coach makes reference to her knowledge to invoke authority	“Yes, as a tenured teacher, it’s me initiating—That conversation and that coaching, right” “[Abby] doesn’t have the in-depth experience that I know I’ve studied, but she at least knows the difference and knows what I’m talking about”
Self as learner (both)	Coach or teacher refers to self as a consumer of new information	“So taking that stance as not being an expert, and I’ll say—look, I might have to look some of this stuff up or I’m not going to know everything. That and just giving that kind of wait time, I guess, for lack of better word, seems to work” “as far as my role, I think my role a lot—is mostly keeping like an open mind and being willing to try different things and not be stuck in doing things my way”
Self as facilitator	Coach positions herself as responsible for guiding the conversation	“I’m supposed to help facilitate meetings. If you would like coaching, this is what I am”
Self as middle person	Coach refers to herself as a bridge between the teaching staff and administration team	“I think the biggest hindrances—and I don’t think a lot of people feel this, but I think is that this role is that in-between thing. I’m not an administrator. I don’t evaluate people, but also they know he talks to me. So I think that’s the biggest hindrance is what the perceived relationship with is the—with the principal”
Coach as mirror	Teacher positions coach as a non-evaluative presence intended to reflect back her teaching practices	“coaching is best when it can be just a very open conversation. It does not feel evaluative at all and just very—it’s very mirror oriented almost. She’s kind of like—gives me a chance to really look at my teaching more deeply”
Coach as resource provider	Teacher positions coach as someone who provides relevant information regarding? (best practices?)	“So being willing to share, and like I said, that—some of that is just like her being able to provide me with the resources that I need…”
Coach as directed observer	Teacher positions coach as someone who observes specific aspects of instruction as determined by the teacher	“That focus when they come in to coach has to be so specific. Otherwise, the feedback that I get is so broad”
Teacher as reflective	Coach positions teacher as independently motivated to engage in reflection on instructional practices	“[Abby] is a very thoughtful person and a reflective person. So it wasn’t as much of me… worrying where we would get to. We’re going to get to someplace good”
Teacher as goal-setter	Coach positions teacher as self-directed and motivated to establish goals	“…this coach-ee has very strong opinions in what she wants to work on”
Teacher as expert	Coach positions teacher as a knowledgeable practitioner	“I would not have brought this conversation up with anyone else, probably, in the building—because they haven’t—they don’t have the experience”
District as determinant of coaching agenda	Coach or teacher position the school district as having influence over coaching goals and content	“So the book I bring with me is Visual Learning Feedback, John Hattie and Shirley Clarke that we did a book study on, because feedback is our big point for the district”
Administration as authority	Coach or teacher position the school administration as trusting the coach and teacher	“I’m not an administrator. I don’t evaluate people, but also they know he talks to me. So I think that’s the biggest hindrance is what the perceived relationship with is the—with the principal”
Administration as trusting	Coach or teacher position themselves as exempt from administrative control	“I would say that at this point, administrators’ expectations are none. (laughter) There doesn’t seem to be an expectation of coaching for the tenured teachers”

). We applied open codes to capture initial impressions and interpretations. Then, during weekly research meetings, we discussed and collapsed initial codes into thematic patterns. For example, the codes “expert/learner binary”, “teacher as learner”, and “teacher exerting agency through learner identity” were collapsed into one code: “teacher as learner”.

Additionally, some codes applied represented in-vivo codes (Saldaña, 2015)—language and phrases used by participants to describe the ways in which the coaching relationship was successful for them. For example, the code “mutually sought after” was taken from Abby’s characterization of her relationship with Kathy: “I think we have a very good relationship and a trusting relationship, and so that it’s something that is mutually sought after, for this coaching to happen (pre-interview, lines 159–161). Other codes derived from the data represented implied values—that is, instances in which we interpreted participants’ values. For example, the code “horizontal flow of knowledge”, which we defined as an equal sharing of knowledge or expertise, was implied but not directly stated. In her pre-interview, Kathy described successful coaching as collaborative: “I try and make the coach-ee a very equal part of it. I’m not coming in as an expert or—I’m just someone to hopefully bounce ideas off of and be able to point you in a direction to—or even just another set of eyes, because you can’t see everything” (lines 86–89). We interpreted this characterization as an attempt to neutralize her own expertise, thereby granting the teacher agency.

2.4.2. Coaching Cycle Meetings

Coaching cycle meetings were analyzed in response to research question three, which sought to understand how participants’ positioning of themselves, each other, and the coaching context played out in the interactional space. To analyze these data, we used structural analysis (Wells, 1999) to segment the transcribed conversations into topical episodes: a series of three or more turns focused on a particular topic of conversation (e.g., establishing an agenda, setting a coaching goal; see

Table 3. Emerging topical episodes and initiations.

Topic	Description	Pre-Observation Frequency	Post-Observation Frequency
Setting meeting norms	Establishing and restating the norms the coach and teacher will use to guide their interactions	2	2
Recap of previous coaching	Revisiting previous coaching cycles	1	0
Establishing a coaching focus	Setting new goals and area of instructional focus for coaching meetings	2	0
Establishing a coaching plan	Determining procedural actions coach will take to observe, take notes, support the teacher	5	1
Setting up joint inquiry task	Establishing goals and procedures for a joint inquiry task	0	7
Joint inquiry task	Jointly examining and analyzing data from the coach’s observation	0	7
Recap of coaching plan	Restating the procedural actions coach will take	2	1
Reflecting on coaching plan	Sharing perceptions and impressions of how the current coaching plan is working	1	0
Student concerns	Discussing strengths or needs of a student or group of students	1	0
Unrelated	Logistics, scheduling, or other conversation unrelated to the content of literacy teaching and learning	3	2

) to determine if conversations followed distinctive patterns.

At a micro-level, we used Robertson et al.’s (2020a) Discourse Coding Scheme (see

Table 4. Discourse move coding scheme.

Code	Definition
Suggestion for Instruction	Coach suggests an instructional action or plan for the first time during the coaching session
Intention	Teacher makes a new statement (not an embrace of a coach suggestion) about an instructional action or plan
Expansion Expansion_Declarative Expansion_Procedural Expansion_Conditional	Coach explains, expands, builds on, or makes a connection to own or teacher’s contribution, not specific to a suggestion for instruction or intention Coach provides further information specific to what the coaching or instructional suggestion/intention is Coach provides further information specific to how the teacher can implement the instructional suggestion/intention Coach provides further information about why or when an instructional suggestion/intention should be used
Observation	Coach/Teacher notices and names the teacher or student action (often not linked back to a previous idea)
Clarifying Invitation	Coach/Teacher requests more information relative to what was said in previous turn or turns. May be a restatement or rewording of the prior turn
Affirmation	Coach affirms an action or statement made by the teacher
Elicitation	Coach/Teacher invites new information about lesson content, teaching actions, or student behaviors
Critical Self-Reflection	Teacher reflects on teaching actions
Explanation	Teacher Explains what she will do and why Justifies what she has done May not address SI May focus on child’s behavior/response, but not on her own instruction
Query	-Coach/Teacher doubts, fully/partially disagrees, challenges or rejects a statement -Coach/Teacher pushes back or challenges the topic of conversation or suggestion being made by the coach Talk has a sense of resistance that is beyond just justifying what is being discussed
Embrace	Teacher makes proactive statements related to the suggestion for instruction regarding intentions for subsequent instruction (e.g., sounds like a good idea, I’ll try it) May include plan to uptake
Acknowledgment	Statement that acknowledges what was said yet that doesn’t respond positively or negatively (e.g., okay)
Agreement	Coach/Teacher agrees with what was previously said. (e.g., Yes, okay, that makes sense, yeah; that might be really helpful)
Reference Back	Coach/Teacher introduces reference to previous knowledge or contributions in the current conversation
Reference to Wider Context	Coach/Teacher makes links between what is being discussed and a wider context by introducing knowledge, experiences, or contributions from outside of the coaching interaction (e.g., lesson observed prior, staff or grade-level meeting)
Reconstructive Recap	Coach summarizes the conversation—not presenting a new suggestion for instruction—just a recap of what was previously discussed during the present or preceding meeting. Usually closes out the conversation, but not always May not fall into one of the three categories (catalyst, IE, or maintenance)
Unrelated	Statements or questions unrelated to the content of teaching and learning being discussed by the coach/teacher (e.g., technology issues with recording, other duties within the school)

) to conduct turn-by-turn analysis. Some participant turns consisted of a single utterance and others consisted of multiple utterances. Assigned codes represented designated discourse move actions, such as “intention”, “clarification”, or “expansion”. When appropriate, multiple codes were applied to a turn. Segments of transcripts related to viewing video, reading, setting up technology, or discussing logistics were not coded.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the frequencies of topical episodes to determine patterns in the overall structure of the conversations. Discourse move frequencies were not calculated since our intent was not to determine quantitatively how many times discourse moves were used. Instead, we used the combination of topical episodes and discourse moves to examine the nature of coach–teacher interactions within a single meeting as well as across meetings for evidence of patterns including who initiated topics and how, demonstrations of coach and teacher agency in statements of intention or questioning, and overall references to the coaching context.

2.4.3. Coach Retrospective Think-Aloud Protocols

Coach retrospective think-aloud protocols were analyzed to answer research questions one and two: how the coach characterized a successful coach–teacher relationship and how the coach positioned themselves, the teacher, and the coaching context. We applied the same codes used for the interview data. Though coach think-aloud protocols gave participants insight into a coach–teacher interaction, we determined it did not constitute an interaction between the participants. Therefore, we did not analyze these sources related to research question three, which pertained to coach–teacher interactions.

2.4.4. Establishing Analytic Trustworthiness

To establish trustworthiness, we each initially watched the video and independently engaged in open coding of Kathy’s pre-interview to become familiar with the content. Then, we discussed the initial coding and impressions of the data source. The goal was to “reach agreement on each code through collaborative discussion rather than independent corroboration” (Smagorinsky, 2008, p. 401). As such, we discussed coding until we reached 100% consensus. The same steps were then followed with Abby’s pre-interview, and then the first pre-coaching transcript and all remaining transcripts in the first coaching cycle, each in separate research team meetings. This process led to the refinement of codes and as needed, re-coding of previous transcripts to reflect updated codes. We corroborated our interpretations with artifacts collected (e.g., coaching logs, observation forms). Six of the twelve transcripts were coded collaboratively. Valerie then coded the remaining six transcripts (i.e., second coaching cycle meetings, two retrospective think-aloud protocols, and two post-interviews), consulting with Dana to resolve questions and reach 100% consensus. Finally, our analysis includes two perspectives—Dana, an insider who was familiar with the contexts from which data were collected, and who collected these data—and Valerie, an outsider who was not familiar with the participants or contexts from which data were derived.

3. Results

We sought to qualitatively understand the public sphere (i.e., interactional space) of one-on-one literacy coaching meetings perceived as successful by both the coach and teacher. In doing so, we specifically examined the positioning of each participant within the conversations and the nature of the discourse during those interactions. First, we present how Kathy and Abby each described the coaching relationship to glean how they were defining “success” through their expressed and inferred values. Then, we describe the positionings they took up for themselves, each other, and the coaching context, as well as patterns in how the conversations unfolded.

3.1. RQ1: How Did the Coach and Teacher Define a Successful Coaching Relationship?

Eleven codes pertaining to the values expressed about coach–teacher relationships were derived from pre- and post-interviews with Kathy and Abby. Additionally, Kathy’s retrospective think-aloud protocols provided further insight into her approach, intentions, and reflections on her work with Abby. Of these eleven, four of these codes coalesced around each person’s participation in coaching, three around their sense of connectedness, two around knowledge development, and two around their approach to working with/as a coach. Each category is described in what follows. Whereas we present these four categories separately, it also became clear that these were not mutually exclusive from each other. Rather, each category seemed to hold influence over the other categories as a more holistic assemblage of “success”. Kathy and Abby’s explanations had significant overlap in the manner in which they each described a successful relationship, yet areas of divergence are also explored.

3.1.1. Participation

For Kathy and Abby, one aspect of their successful coaching relationship was the nature of each person’s participation in the conversations. Both Kathy and Abby described voluntary participation by the teacher. Abby shared that “as a tenured teacher it’s me that is initiating that conversation and that coaching” (pre-interview, lines 32–34). She then went on to describe the school context around coaching as it pertained to her: “I would say at this point, administrators’ expectations are none. There doesn’t seem to be an expectation of coaching for tenured teachers” (pre-interview, lines 38–39). Similarly, Kathy expressed the issues that can arise for her as a coach when teacher participation is not voluntary, saying “And so that does get really tricky if you have an administrator come in and say you have to” (pre-interview lines 113–116).

Relatedly, Kathy and Abby each extended this idea of voluntary participation as conversations about teaching and learning that were mutually sought after. Abby explicitly described this intention:

It’s something that’s very mutually sought after for this coaching to happen. That she [Kathy] like enjoys coming in and getting to coach, and I enjoy someone who is willing to coach.

(pre-interview, lines 160–162)

Similarly, Kathy expressed this mutual participation as beneficial. For example, “So I guess I have the luxury of kind of feeling relationships out and seeing what that is so then, hey, do we want to have this conversation?” (pre-interview, lines 42–44). For both participants, a part of the success seemed to be the choice to enter the interactional space.

Additionally, the collaborative nature of participation was perceived to be important. Kathy and Abby worked together to put in place processes and plans for coaching interactions. In her pre-interview, Abby shared about her previous work with Kathy:

A lot of collaborative building—we did quite a lot of collaboratively building…recording sheets or ways to collect data or like ways to look at and think about certain aspects.

(lines 53–63)

Then later in her post-interview, Abby shared that

It was really positive and that it was really open—a very open collaboration, and we were able to just have some really good discussions about the learning and the teaching that the kids had.

(lines 15–18)

Moreover, Abby appreciated the flexible and responsive nature of the coaching collaboration. In her post-interview, she highlighted that “the way that Kathy does coaching is very fluid and flexible depending on your need as a teacher” (lines 129–130). In the same turn, she went on to describe this as helpful and not like other coaching experiences. She said,

It’s very flexible depending on what we’re doing…that something that’s different for me than some of the coaching I’ve had in the past, and I think it’s made the experience a lot more productive for me.

(lines 137–139)

Kathy also noted her intentions for collaboration in the coaching relationship. For example, in her pre-interview she said, “I mean, I come prepared saying here’s a plan. Let’s try it. If it doesn’t work, we’ll go back to the drawing board…” (lines 175–176). Then in one of her retrospective reflections she shared, “I don’t know, I guess I could have loaded everything…but just allowing to process…I think it’s important” (retrospective think-aloud 2, lines 114–118). Each valued the participatory give and take about how the coaching interactions would unfold.

3.1.2. Connectedness

While choice and collaboration were shared values, Kathy and Abby described a sense of connectedness through a prioritization of trust and respect that provided a foundation for a long-term relationship. Across pre- and post- interviews, 10 excerpts were categorized under “trust and respect” and seven excerpts described “long-term relationships”. Kathy and Abby seemed to place similar emphasis on trust and respect; Kathy mentioned it six times while Abby mentioned it four times across the interviews, yet seemed to value trust and respect differently. For example, Abby shared a perception of neutrality from her coach:

The respect and the trust between us is really important and probably the most important thing … I know that when she comes in and when she’s talking to me, it’s not from a judgmental standpoint.

(post-interview, lines 69–75)

On the other hand, trust and respect for Kathy seemed to have more to do with confidentiality and follow-through. In four of Kathy’s six quotes, she described what trust and respect meant, and in three of them, she mentioned the importance of follow-through: “people respect me, I feel, here. They know if I say I’m going to do something, I’m going to follow through that” (pre-interview, lines 115–116). In the fourth quote, she emphasized confidentiality: “[My administrator] also knows I don’t cross those boundaries with the teachers. What the teachers say to me between coaching stuff—no, you don’t need to know that” (pre-interview, lines 134–135).

Relatedly, trust was also connected to preparedness. There was value in doing the work necessary outside of coaching meetings to maximize time within those sessions. Kathy shared,

being really focused and knowing what I wanted to get out of the meetings…That is successful because you can let time get away, and if the teachers, I think, are feeling, well, this wasn’t really useful for me or this was a hindrance, they you’re not going to be to continue coaching”.

(post-interview, lines 132–136)

Likewise, Abby expressed that the collaborative nature of pre-planning is positive.

We were able to meet and do some preplanning…with the vision and that specific focus of what we were working on. And so that was really helpful and beneficial.

(post-interview, lines 17–22)

Additionally, both Abby and Kathy valued long-term coach–teacher relationships. Abby emphasized the advantageous impact of a long-term relationship on coaching outcomes. For example, in her post-interview, she attributed the coaching cycles’ success to rapport established over time:

The more I work with her, the closer we get and the more comfortable we are and the more we learn about how the other person works. And so we can have just better and better conversations as we go”.

(lines 41–43)

Kathy emphasized relationships as helpful in initiating coaching. In her pre-interview, Kathy attributed her ability to begin a coaching cycle with a teacher to the comfort created by their pre-existing relationship: “that kind of relationship building had already happened and so I think that she is very comfortable with me…” (lines 47–49). She then described how she acted in ways to maintain trust when she said, “I make sure to follow through because for all the interactions with this role, it’s the trust. That’s what it comes down to” (lines 113–115). She further explained in her post-interview how trust influenced more sustained work. She asserted that “if you don’t have trust in some sort of relationship, it probably isn’t [open]” (lines 123–126). Trust seemed to be built over time and connected to the actions of the coach and teacher in their professional roles (e.g., being neutral and open, following through).

3.1.3. Knowledge Development

Even with significant overlap in their expressed values about coaching, Abby and Kathy both shared about the importance of knowledge development in coaching conversations, yet they talked about knowledge development differently. Kathy expressed a prioritization of a more horizontal flow of knowledge (Robertson et al., 2020b) in which the coach–teacher interactions were marked by a more equal sharing of knowledge. Through utterances related to creating space for the teacher’s voice and neutralizing her status as an expert, she expressed a value in not holding a more conventional expert-learner binary sometimes seen in coaching. For example, in her pre-interview, she spoke of her desire to “make the coach-ee a very equal part of it. I’m not coming in as an expert” (line 86). Here, she implies a connection between emphasizing the teacher’s voice and diminishing her expert status. She elaborates on this idea later in the interview, saying

I’m not in here to correct something or do something… I don’t have the answers. So taking that stance as not being an expert, and I’ll say—look, I might have to look some of this stuff up or I’m not going to know everything.

(lines 158–162)

These ideas were also expressed as intentions that guided Kathy’s actions. For example, Kathy said, “I think the biggest thing is…give space because I have found to make sure to limit my talk and make sure they have space to talk…then that seems to be effective” (pre-interview, lines 153–158). In response to watching a coaching session video she said,

I was right but just—so just let her come to that decision…It’s always, I think, about letting the teacher guide the conversation so that they can come—they’re the ones initiating the ideas and concepts.

(retrospective think-aloud 3, lines 125–130)

Kathy expressed multiple times that she, as the coach, needs to live in the raw data and be prepared with questions to guide conversations, but that she first needed to be open to where the conversation will go.

On the other hand, Abby prioritized access to knowledge. She was looking to her coach to provide access to additional resources and ideas that served to guide the coaching agendas. For example, during her pre-interview, while describing hindrances to effective coaching work, she said

If they have this great strategy but I don’t feel really comfortable with how that strategy is supposed to work or what the outcome is supposed to be, then that makes it hard for me to really take it on.

(lines 107–108)

She reiterated this stance in her post-interview:

I think one of the things that helps me a lot is that I really like research, and I like to learn like new just actual, specific things that I can put into my toolkit and walk away with and try out.

(lines 106–109)

3.1.4. Approach

As part of trust and following through on commitments over the long term, as well as considering the role knowledge development played in their conversations, Kathy and Abby agreed on the goal of their coaching. They each expressed value in a practice approach with generalizable outcomes. Specifically, they sought more to support Abby in becoming a better teacher, not just “fix” a single lesson. Kathy addressed the sentiment explicitly in one of her fourth retrospective think-aloud sharing, “coaching isn’t that you have to fix something. It’s to make your practice better” (lines 126–127). Then in her post-interview, she expanded on this idea when saying,

I think that’s where I see it with Abby is just it might not be a direct conversation of a direct link, but I know because of what we say she puts that to other areas”.

(lines 187–189)

She continued,

“it should never be about the specific lesson”.

(lines 193–194)

For Kathy, her focus was on Abby’s practice: “What can Abby do to bring the kids whatever” (post-interview, lines 194–197).

Abby similarly expressed these ideas of getting better at her craft while also getting specific, practice-oriented feedback. She shared,

that focus when they [a coach] come in to coach has to be so specific. Otherwise, the feedback that I get is so broad that it—well, it usually does two things. Why they come in and they’re looking like at the whole lesson, for example, then I might either get super broad feedback like your timing should be better and your engagement should be better and your—or it gets so specific like, well, maybe you have asked this question instead of that question. Well, that doesn’t—that helps me on that lesson next year when I teach that specific lesson, but it doesn’t necessarily make me a better teacher.

(pre-interview, Lines 75–82)

Abby wanted access to knowledge and resources as well as specific practices she could work on, but she looked for those to be shared in a way that transcended lesson fixes and had a more long-term and broader view of teaching and learning.

3.2. RQ2: How Did the Coach and Teacher Position Themselves, Each Other, and the Coaching Context Within the Conversations?

As we examined the interview, coaching cycle, and retrospective think-aloud protocol data sources of this “successful” coach–teacher dyad, we discerned three broad thematic categories of discursive positioning in the utterances of Kathy and Abby: positioning of self, positioning of one another, and positioning of their context. In this section, we describe these categories in relation to each participant.

3.2.1. Positioning of Self

Kathy and Abby regularly used utterances that sought to establish their perceived roles and positions when in coaching interactions. Both Kathy and Abby positioned themselves as experts and as learners. Moreover, Kathy also spoke in ways that positioned her as a neutral facilitator and as an outsider.

Self as Expert. Though both Kathy and Abby positioned themselves as experts, Kathy did this more frequently than Abby—six utterances compared to two. Notably, Kathy never positioned herself as an expert in an interview when she talked about her approach to coaching and what made coaching successful or not; rather, all such positionings occurred during coach retrospective think-alouds as she reflected on how coaching conversations unfolded. Her self-positioning as an expert often appeared in utterances justifying or clarifying her coaching practices as she viewed the video-recordings of coaching meetings. For example, Kathy seemed to position herself as an arbiter of teacher agency, using her expert status to determine how much freedom and space would be beneficial for a teacher in the context of a coaching cycle. In her first coach think-aloud, she compared the approach she took with Abby, a veteran teacher, to the one she took with a novice teacher:

I’m not allowing enough space. I think that is how much I have to guide a new teacher in coaching and someone I haven’t worked with versus someone we have worked together.

(lines 243–245)

Here she portrays her guidance as something to be invoked as she discerns necessary—heavily with a novice teacher and sparingly with someone more veteran.

Inversely, Kathy positioned herself as an expert with veteran teachers in her decision-making to give them more agency. Kathy made intentional decisions to give Abby more space for dialogue or access to knowledge. During her third think-aloud, while explaining her decision to integrate specific feedback strategies in her session with Abby, Kathy said “I would not have brought this conversation up with anyone else, probably, in the building—because they haven’t—they don’t have the experience” (lines 202–204). Like her decision to guide conversations more explicitly with novice teachers, here Kathy positions herself as responsible for discerning the resources that would benefit teachers. She determines that Abby is an expert and subsequently provides her access to more in-depth and nuanced resources.

Abby also positioned herself as an expert, though she did so only twice. To do so, she invoked her status as a veteran teacher in her pre-interview: “…as a tenured teacher, it’s me initiating—That conversation and that coaching” (lines 32–34). She later expanded on this idea, saying that “There doesn’t seem to be an expectation of coaching for the tenured teachers” (lines 38–39). To Abby, her experience qualifies her to discern whether she needs coaching, and it similarly exempts her from the process if she determines that she does not.

Self as Learner. Though both Kathy and Abby positioned themselves as learners, Kathy did so in one instance, whereas Abby did so in eight. Moreover, within this one utterance during her pre-interview, Kathy also subtly positioned herself as an expert. In discussing effective coaching practices, she described how “taking that stance as not being an expert” was helpful and that there may be times when she “might have to look some of this stuff up” (lines 160–161). By describing this situation in which she was learning about novel concepts alongside the teachers she coached, Kathy invoked the role of learner. However, she went on to say that another effective practice is “giving that wait time, I guess, for lack of a better word” (lines 161–162), an elaboration that subtly invokes an expert/learner binary in which Kathy is the expert—extending wait time to elicit the expected response—and the teacher is the learner.

Abby’s positioning of herself as a learner often simultaneously positioned Kathy as the expert. For example, in her pre-interview, she described her approach to coaching as “being able to have specific questions answered” (lines 19–20). In the same interview, she later elaborated on this idea, saying “when I have those questions answered, then I can really feel like I can dive into things better” (lines 112–113). Here, Abby positioned herself as a consumer of novel information and Kathy as a resource of this information. Abby similarly invoked this expert/learner binary in her descriptions of implementing new instructional practices. In her pre-interview, she described her role as “being willing to try new things but then also being able to have the coach willing to break it down and take it, maybe, smaller chunks at a time” (lines 100–102). Once more, Abby is the learner, implementing new practices, and Kathy is the expert, guiding her implementation.

Self as Neutral Facilitator. Only Kathy positioned herself as a neutral facilitator, which she did 16 times in both pre- and post-interviews and coach think-alouds. Five times she invoked the idea of a neutral space and horizontal flow of knowledge to take up a self-positioning of neutrality. For example, during her pre-interview, Kathy described her role as “…not an administrator. I don’t evaluate people” (lines 179–180). Her commitment to neutrality in this utterance is reinforced later in a retrospective think-aloud when she described her decision not to evaluate one of Abby’s instructional choices:

I’m very glad I didn’t come in and—not that—I don’t think I would say this—but you did it great here, but you didn’t do it well here. Well, I’m not supposed to have that judgment.

(lines 412–415)

Overwhelmingly, Kathy used the idea of “raw data” collected during coaching observations to position herself as a neutral facilitator. She directly references “data” or “raw data” eight times. For example, in a retrospective think-aloud, she describes the importance of maintaining “raw data”, a term that seems to imply the neutrality of collected information:

I think it’s a nice… reminder you always want to stay in raw data, because when you go up your Ladder of Inference, it could be totally different than what you expected”.

(lines 34–36)

She reinforces this idea later during her post-interview when she says

…you have to be organized to keep it straight and be able to say, well, how will this data make sense? Because we’re the ones presenting the data and hopefully it is mostly raw data.

(lines 75–80)

Self as Outsider. Finally, Kathy also positioned herself as an outsider, an identity she seemed to perceive as advantageous to her facilitation of teacher–coach relationships. For example, in describing her role as a coach, she said of her employment in a new school district, “…I think that’s helped me a lot. I feel lucky that way, that when I moved here, it was—you’re new. The school has been for 40 years. A lot of people have worked for a majority of those 40 years here. So that it’s like you—I was clean slate, didn’t have baggage” (pre-interview, lines 106–111).

Here, Kathy positioned her outsider status with the district as a neutralizing force; alternatively, she seemed to imply that a coach promoted from within a school district may face social strain as they adapt to a new role with different power dynamics. Conversely, in the same interview, Kathy later positioned herself as an outsider within the dynamics of the school social groups: “I think in other places that… can be a hindrance of, the weirdness of our position for, we’re not a teacher, but we aren’t anything else” (lines 187–189). While Kathy perceived her newness to the school district as an advantage to coaching, she seemed to perceive a lack of group membership within the school as a hindrance.

3.2.2. Positioning of One Another

As we examined the data sources, we also found instances where Kathy and Abby were each discursively positioning one another within the public sphere. Abby seemed to position Kathy metaphorically as a mirror and as a resource provider. On the other hand, Kathy seemed to position Abby as someone who sets her own learning goals, is reflective, and possesses expertise in her teaching abilities.

Coach as Mirror. Abby’s positioning of Kathy aligned in many ways with Kathy’s positioning of herself, particularly with Kathy’s positioning of herself as a facilitator. That is, Abby saw one of Kathy’s roles in coaching as facilitating reflection and providing direct observations of her teaching. For example, Abby positioned Kathy as a mirror—a facilitator of teacher reflection—seven times. In her pre-interview, Abby described successful coaching as “a very open conversation” (line 41) and said of Kathy’s coaching,

It does not feel evaluative at all and just very—it’s very mirror oriented almost. She’s kind of like—gives me a chance to really look at my teaching more deeply. So a lot of what she does in her role is just helping me to clearly see what I’m doing so that I can reflect on it.

(lines 42–45)

Similarly, she went on to say that Kathy rarely explicitly tells her what to do, but rather poses reflective questions:

Just a lot of—have you thought about—and almost never directly enough for me to be able to say—figure out what she wants. Which I’m sure is part of her goal—so sometimes frustrating.

(lines 49–51)

Similarly, Abby further positioned Kathy as a directed observer—someone intended to observe and facilitate reflection on teacher-specified aspects of instruction. For example, in her pre-interview, Abby said that

when they come in to coach has to be so specific. Otherwise, the feedback that I get is so broad that it…like your timing should be better and your engagement should be better”.

(lines 75–78)

However, she elaborated by saying feedback can also be too specific:

…or it gets so specific like, well, maybe you could have asked this question instead of that question. Well, that doesn’t—that helps me on that lesson next year when I teach that specific lesson, but it doesn’t necessarily make me a better teacher (lines 78–82). Ultimately, Abby seemed to express that whether feedback is broad or specific should be determined by the practices a teacher wishes to reflect on, and ultimately feedback serves to improve teachers.

Coach as Resource Provider. Abby frequently positioned Kathy as a resource provider, a role she alluded to six times. In her pre-interview,

Abby described her approach to coaching as being able to ask questions:

She’s very much involved in our day-to-day learning and teaching, and so the way that I mostly approach it is just being able to ask questions. Since she’s so involved in what we do every day, we can—she’s such a good resource.

(lines 16–19)

Moreover, like her positioning of Kathy as a mirror, Abby’s positioning of Kathy as a resource provider seemed attached to Kathy’s lack of overt prescription:

She does very little teaching toward me of here’s what you should do and a lot of questioning about, so why did you do that? Is there another way? And providing the resources that I might need to learn and grow in certain areas as well.

(lines 41–52)

Here, Abby positioned Kathy as a resource used in tandem with teacher reflection, and she went on to describe how a lack of resources could be a hindrance: “I think another hinderance could be just feeling like you don’t know enough about whatever initiative you’re going to try if you don’t have the knowledge base” (lines 99–105).

Teacher as Goal-Setter. Throughout both her pre-interview and coaching reflections, Kathy positioned Abby as the goal-setter within their coaching relationship. For example, in her pre-interview, Kathy described the process used to determine specific coaching goals:

…we do the framework of the HLPs (TeachingWorks, 2025) and it was interesting last year. So [Abby’s] relationship would be a continuation of last year. It was kind of what ones seem interesting to you, what is an area of your practice you want to get better at?”.

(lines 77–81)

Moreover, Abby’s desire to improve was emphasized. Then, in her first coach think-aloud, Kathy expressed a similar idea, saying that

[Abby] references the HLP, because she likes studying them and working them. I think at one point I say that the HL—we don’t have to have the right name or the right number. That’s not—it’s just getting to the what she wants to learn with her practice is most important.

(lines 86–89)

As such, Kathy not only reinforced the idea that Abby was a goal-setter with a desire to improve her teaching, but she also framed the HLPs, which was a basis of coach professional learning in the district, as largely irrelevant—simply a tool with which to point towards Abby’s objectives.

Teacher as Expert. Where she positioned herself as an expert, Kathy likewise positioned Abby as an expert during six instances throughout her interviews and think-alouds. Kathy’s positioning of Abby as an expert tended to invoke Abby’s experience as a veteran teacher. For example, in her first retrospective think-aloud, she described the value of Abby’s reflections considering her experience:

…you can see she does think a lot about her teaching and her instruction already. So a lot of [her coaching] is letting her get that out because she is an experienced teacher and what is she thinking about so then I know my next moves to take in the conversation”.

(lines 65–69)

Not only did Kathy seem to trust that Abby was reflecting on her instructional practices, but Abby’s reflection also seemed determinant of the coaching agenda.

During their second coaching cycle, Kathy once more used Abby’s experience to position her as an expert. In describing her decision to discuss her teacher talk in questioning and responding to students, she said

I would not have brought this conversation up with anyone else, probably, in the building—because they haven’t—they don’t have the experience. And she doesn’t have the in-depth experience that I know I’ve studied, but she at least knows the difference and knows what I’m talking about”.

(retrospective think-aloud 3, lines 202–205)

Kathy differentiated between her own expertise, which was derived from studying, and Abby’s expertise, which was derived from experience. Despite qualitative differences in their expertise, however, Kathy ultimately perceived Abby as capable. For example, Kathy also positioned Abby as capable of interpreting data. This positioning cohered with her earlier reflection during her second think-aloud. Kathy said “I always give the copies of the data to the teachers. They can reflect on it more on their own time” (lines 69–70). Here, Abby’s positioning as an expert was contingent on her ability to parse data.

Teacher as Reflective. In her think-alouds and post-interview, Kathy repeatedly positioned Abby as reflective, a quality that Kathy seemed to perceive as a positive dynamic of the coaching relationship. For example, in her post-interview, Kathy cited Abby’s reflective processes as a driver of successful coaching outcomes:

…just knowing she is a very thoughtful person and a reflective person. So it wasn’t as much of me like…worrying where we would get to. We’re going to get to someplace good, and where that goes, that’s okay, and I’m okay with that.

(lines 25–28)

This assessment reinforced a similar instance in her fourth think-aloud, during which Kathy reflected on her decision to allow Abby space to evaluate her own teaching practices. Specifically, during their post-observation meeting, Kathy and Abby discussed Abby’s tendency to lead students overtly towards target practices rather than allowing them time and space to practice independently. During her reflection on this meeting, Kathy observed Abby’s recognition of her own tendency to overtly lead students: “And so that she recognizes that. I think that’s a really important thing” (line 480). Further, she cited Abby’s self-reflection as the most important part of coaching:

… I gave her the space that she could think about that. And that’s what’s the most important thing, I think, about coaching is allow teachers to have the space to reflect on their practice without judgment.

(lines 490–492)

3.2.3. Positioning of Context

In addition to analyzing the manners in which Kathy and Abby positioned themselves and one another, we examined their positioning of context—that is, their positioning of environmental factors that shaped the public sphere in which their discourse occurred. We defined context as components of school infrastructure shared by coach and teacher and explicitly referenced during the data collection process. These factors included administration, classroom curriculum, and district initiatives. For example, both Kathy and Abby made frequent references to high-leverage practices (HLPs), a series of numbered best practices for teaching produced and published by TeachingWorks (2025). During data collection, the school district where Kathy and Abby were positioned systematically integrated instruction of HLPs through professional development and coaching. Therefore, mentions of HLPs throughout the coaching cycles constituted a reference to context. References to members of the administration and classroom curriculum were treated similarly.

Our analysis of interviews and retrospective think-alouds revealed the school district and administration as salient contextual factors. We collapsed references to these contextual factors into three codes, one of which pertained to the school district at large, and two of which pertained to the school principal.

District as Determinant of Coaching Agenda. Both Kathy and Abby positioned the school district as an initial determinant of their coaching agenda. Kathy mentioned HLPs—which their school district adopted as a focus for professional development—six times. For example, in her first think-aloud, Kathy said

So Abby references the HLP, because she likes studying them and working them. I think at one point I say that …we don’t have to have the right name or the right number…it’s just getting to the what she wants to learn with her practice is most important”.

(lines 86–89)

Notably, Abby did not actually mention the HLPs in either of her interviews; however, she did reference Wit & Wisdom, the reading curriculum her school district adopted. For example, when asked in her pre-interview what her classroom might look like on a daily basis, Abby said “Let’s see. Well, we use a program… We have Wit & Wisdom as our program …so I do use that very—fairly true to the program” (lines 124–129). Kathy also mentioned Wit & Wisdom in her third think-aloud: “…at the end of each chunk in Wit & Wisdom, they—the students need to say what they’ve learned content-wise but also what they’ve learned ELA-wise” (lines 142–144).

In addition to the HLPs and Wit & Wisdom, throughout her interviews and think-alouds, Kathy referenced professional development books assigned by the district as a determinant of the coaching agenda. For example, she said “So the book I bring with me is Visual Learning Feedback…that we did a book study on, because feedback is our big point for the district” (retrospective think-aloud 3, lines 8–9). Though their references to HLPs and Wit & Wisdom implicated the district as a determinant of the coaching agenda, in this reflection Kathy explicitly stated the district’s role in shaping their agenda—that is, the district prioritized giving students feedback, and therefore, Kathy and Abby prioritized it.

Administration as Trusting Authority. Both Abby and Kathy positioned their principal as a general authority over the school setting, yet this sense of authority had little influence over the coaching conversations that played out in the interactional space. For example, Kathy described teachers’ conflation of coaches and administrators as a hindrance:

this role is that in-between thing. I’m not an administrator. I don’t evaluate people, but also they know he talks to me. So I think that’s the biggest hindrance is what the perceived relationship with is the—with the principal.

(pre-interview, 179–182)

Here, the principal’s authority seemed to be derived from their evaluative role; though Kathy did not position this authority as extending to the coaching environment, she pointed toward teachers’ reactions to administrative authority as indirectly shaping the coaching context. Moreover, Abby seemed to indicate that administration had at least some control over the content of her lessons, which indirectly impacted coaching. For example, in describing the lesson Kathy planned to observe, Abby said that her plan to introduce students to the practice of reflection was altered: “Now they want us to model drafting a reflection. I wasn’t planning on doing that. We were just going to talk about what a reflection is…” (pre-observation cycle 2, lines 125–127).

Though both Kathy and Abby seemed to position administration as a general authority of the school, they did not position the principal as exerting agency over the coaching context. For example, in her pre-interview, Abby said that their principal’s expectations for tenured teachers to participate in coaching “are none” (line 38). Similarly, Kathy said “…it’s not very directed from him, but the expectation with new people just to at least go through one cycle” (Kathy Pre-interview, lines 148–149). For Abby and Kathy, administration played a minimal role in their participation, with coaching providing Abby’s tenured status. Moreover, Kathy expressed a sense of agency over her administrator. When describing her sense of coach–teacher confidentiality, she said

I’m not afraid to tell him things that I think he needs to hear. He can trust me that I’m going to tell that, but then he also knows I don’t cross those boundaries with the teachers. What the teachers say to me between coaching stuff—no, you don’t need to know that.

(pre-interview, lines 132–135)

This perceived exemption from administrative authority seemed to emphasize both Abby’s and Kathy’s perception of coaching as voluntary, which seemed essential to their ideas of successful coaching.

3.3. RQ3: How Did the Positionings of the Coach and Teacher Manifest Within the Interactional Space, and What Characteristics Define the Nature of Their Talk During These Interactions?

To analyze how these positionings played out within the interactional space, we first analyzed the structure of all four coach–teacher meetings, parsing them into topical episodes. We then examined who initiated the conversations and the topical shifts therein and used turn-by-turn analysis of the discourse to describe the types of talk each participant used within those episodes. In doing so, we sought to understand if the conversations between Kathy and Abby followed distinctive patterns.

3.3.1. Patterns in Conversational Topics

Across all four coaching cycle meetings, we identified a total of 37 topical episodes (see Table 3). Five episodes coded as “unrelated”—meaning the conversation did not pertain to the topic of literacy teaching and learning—were excluded from further analysis. Ten episodes pertained to the coaching plan. For example, six episodes were coded as “establishing a coaching plan”. Kathy initiated all but one of these episodes. Three episodes were used to recap the coaching plan, which we defined as summarizing the established plan; both Kathy and Abby initiated such episodes. Finally, one episode constituted reflection on the coaching plan, which we defined as sharing perceptions and impressions of how the coaching plan was going. This occurred during a joint inquiry task when Kathy reflected on the effectiveness of the data collection tool she was using: “Format wise, did it work okay?” (post-observation cycle 2, line 509).

Two episodes referenced the coaching plan more broadly and were coded as “establishing a coaching cycle focus”. We defined this code as setting new goals and instructional focuses for the coaching cycle, which differed from establishing a coaching plan in that these episodes did not include specific details on the execution of goals. For example, during their second pre-observation conference, Kathy checked in with Abby regarding the goals they had identified by asking, “Do you think that’s enough for you to practice?” (lines 394–395).

During post-observation meetings, seven episodes were coded as “setting up joint inquiry task”, which we defined as the establishment of goals or procedures surrounding a joint inquiry task. Seven episodes comprised the joint inquiry itself, which we defined as the joint examination or analysis of observation data. Though the episodic patterns of the meetings differed based on whether they were a pre-observation meeting or a post-observation meeting, in both, similar patterns of discourse were evident.

Pre-Observation. Pre-observation conferences tended to center on the establishment of coaching goals and plans and assumed the following structure: norm setting, coaching cycle focus/coaching cycle plan, and recapping the coaching plan. In both conferences, most time was spent establishing a specific coaching plan, which pertained to observation tools and data analysis, while less time was dedicated to a coaching cycle focus, which pertained to general goals of the coaching cycle. Both pre-observation conferences ended with recapping the coaching plan, which tended to be a short summary, often preceded by an agreement. For example, Abby initiated a recap of the coaching plan by saying “That sounds good. And then we can kind of do that sorting work” (pre-observation cycle 1, line 250).

Some topical episodes seemed unique to the first pre-observation conference, which was the first of the cycle and of the school year. For example, while both conferences ended with a summary, the first conference began with Kathy recapping the previous year’s coaching cycle and ended with Abby reflecting on previous coaching. Kathy’s recap of the previous coaching cycle seemed to function as a way to maintain continuity between cycles. After summarizing the HLPs they worked on throughout the previous cycle, she initiated a new topical episode to establish a coaching cycle focus:

So what are you thinking about where you would like to start now? Because I don’t know if you feel like where we left off last year with this group of kids and everything is or if you wanted to go backwards a little bit, or how are you feeling this year? (lines 28–31).

While Kathy’s recap functioned as a throughline between cycles, Abby’s reflection seemed to operate as a way to validate the importance of their coaching work:

The work we did last year on those instructional decisions about like what to keep and what not to keep and how to focus on the main, important things about the lesson, I feel like—thank goodness. Because that almost feels like—because we did that work towards more at the beginning of the year, like I feel like that became fairly second nature to start thinking about it even through the middle of the lesson.

(lines 288–294)

Post-Observation. Post-observation conferences were mostly spent setting up and conducting joint inquiry tasks and generally adhered to the following structure: norm setting, setting up a joint inquiry task, and participating in the joint inquiry task. While pre-observation conferences served to establish and reflect on coaching plans and goals, post-observation conferences served to collaboratively draw conclusions about Abby’s instruction. In fact, no conversation was used to establish a coaching plan in the first post-observation conference.

Kathy always set up the joint inquiry tasks, which she did by first summarizing the tool she used to collect data: “They’re short ones I kept on one page. I figured if you want to look at one of those, we’ll cut it so you can look at it next to each other, but that was the daily language review” (post-observation cycle 1, lines 19–21). Then, Kathy directed Abby to specific places in her data and gave her time to read: “So I’ll give you a minute, if that actually makes sense” (post-observation cycle 2, line 41).

During the last post-observation conference, which was the last meeting of the semester, Abby and Kathy reflected on how the coaching had gone, which served to conclude both cycles of coaching that occurred during the fall. They ended the conference by establishing the next phase of the coaching plan, which was to allow Abby time to practice and consolidate her understandings gleaned from the coaching work. When Kathy asked, “What do you think of next steps?” (line 561), Abby replied that “some space to work on it and to practice and to just shift that thinking a little bit would be probably beneficial at this point” (line 566–567). However, they also made plans to continue coaching after the winter break: “So then is it something like after break… we can set up another pre-observation and see where we’re going” (lines 569–572). In this way, the post-conference seemed to act as a through line to continued coaching.

3.3.2. Patterns in Turn Initiation and Discourse Moves

When considering how participants in a conversation are positioning themselves and others, it is important to consider who seems to be directing the flow of conversational topics. As the patterns of topical episodes unfolded, a turn-by-turn analysis revealed an equal number of teacher and coach talk turns (372 turns each across the four coaching meetings), but a disparity in topical episode initiations. Kathy initiated 25 topical episodes and Abby initiated ten. However, whereas it initially seemed that Kathy was directing the flow of the conversations, an examination of the functions of those initiations revealed more nuance. Many of the episodes that Kathy initiated served to structure the meetings. For example, at the beginning of each meeting, Kathy reiterated pre-established coaching norms:

So, to start with reviewing our norms, we had said that we’ll be honest, know that I’m here to support and to help you grow. The work is about Abby, not the kids, and the focus is on broad teaching improvement, not on the specific lessons. So is there anything you want to change or add for next year?

(pre-observation cycle 1)

Further, at the beginning of each meeting, Kathy tended to highlight the meeting’s agenda, often by summarizing the meeting’s before. For example, during their first post-observation meeting, Kathy initiated a conversation about the agenda by saying “I tallied teacher talk versus student talk with raw data and recorded talk that was tied to the learning goal”, (lines 6–7) which was the plan she and Abby co-constructed during the meeting before. She then went on to set the agenda for the current meeting: “So we’re sorting through the types, categories of talk together to figure out next steps” (lines 7–8).

On the other hand, though Kathy tended to initiate shifts in the flow of episodes, Abby often seemed to dictate the topics and content to be discussed—particularly during post-observation conferences, which included joint inquiry tasks. For example, while looking at student discussion data, Kathy initiated a joint inquiry by eliciting. “Is this what you were hoping to see in that part…what are you noticing from this?” (post-observation cycle 2, lines 69–71), which opened the floor for Abby to share her thoughts. Then, Abby engaged in critical self-reflection, thereby directing the conversation’s topic:

Yeah, I think it is more of what I would want to see from that part, because I see a lot more of the kids discussing and talking…which is, I think, a good place for me to be as the teacher, then, at least at this point, because they were coming up with good—the right way to go. So yeah, I think that that is more what I would hope versus just a guiding scaffolded questioning.

(lines 72–79)

Turn-by-turn analysis also revealed trends regarding the nature of the discourse moves Kathy and Abby used. In some instances, both participants used the same discourse moves regularly. For example, both Kathy and Abby frequently acknowledged and agreed (e.g., “okay”, “right”, “yes”) with one another. These served to affirm suggestions and often concluded topical episodes. Additionally, they both tended to use elaborative statements, which we defined generally as explaining, expanding, building on, or making a connection to an idea. Kathy tended to use expansions to further explicate a point or instructional practice. For example, in their final post-observation, Kathy participated in a joint inquiry task by making a declarative statement about the plan she and Abby established in their previous meeting: “So I know we had said before that if… the correct meaning of reflection came out, you would go with it, and then… if not, you would have layered that in” (lines 61–63). This expansion served to progress the joint inquiry of observation data. Similarly, Abby, used explanations that described what she did and why. For example, during the same joint inquiry task, she explained her instructional choices by saying “I actually hadn’t planned that at all” (line 84).

On the other hand, some discourse moves seemed unique to Kathy or Abby. For example, only Abby engaged in critical self-reflection. Often, this move was catalyzed by an examination of student data and recalling the lesson more broadly. For instance, while looking at discussion data, Abby reflected on her tendency to over-explain: “I didn’t go off on this long like rabbit trail of here, let me remind you all about a recount… because that would be my—probably my go-to” (post-observation cycle 2, lines 114–117). Using the data Kathy collected during instruction, Abby reflected on a tendency she self-identified as negative while also noting her perceived progress.

Kathy tended to either seek clarification or affirm Abby’s instructional practices, both of which seemed to keep the conversational floor open for Abby. For example, after discussing a coaching plan for cycle two, Kathy asked for more information from Abby through an open-ended question regarding the lesson she planned to observe: “So what’s in the lesson?” (pre-observation cycle 2, line 86). This questioning also initiated a topical episode on the coaching cycle focus during which Abby expanded on her lesson and objectives to provide rationale for what occurred:

This is the first time they’ve ever reflected. Now, they want us to model drafting a reflection. I wasn’t planning on doing that. We were just going to talk about what a reflection is, and so I think that…some of the questions that I would probably be wanting is talking about like what do you already know about reflecting and giving them space.

(lines 124–128)

As Abby continued to describe her lesson, Kathy acknowledged Abby’s contributions to the conversations and offered agreements on points shared. She also continually asked further clarifying questions, using the information Abby provided to design her observation tool.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this investigation was to describe what happens within the interactional space of literacy coaching meetings as a coach works one-on-one with a teacher in a partnership deemed successful by both participants. We examined pre- and post-interviews, coaching cycle interactions, and coach retrospective think-aloud protocols and explored the nature of the discourse and how they used their talk to position themselves, each other, and the coaching context. Our intent was not to determine if coaching made a difference in literacy outcomes or instructional practices, but rather to describe what happens in coaching conversations when both the teacher and coach are perceiving the partnership as working well. Existing research provides evidence that literacy coaching improves teaching (e.g., Egert et al., 2018; Correnti et al., 2020) and student outcomes (e.g., Allen et al., 2015; Sailors & Price, 2015) and identifies the efficacy of broad coaching actions such as modeling, co-planning, and observing. However, research still points to inconsistencies and more neutral findings (Marsh et al., 2012; Sailors et al., 2017; Troyer, 2017), raising questions about how those coaching actions unfold in the coaching conversations (Kraft et al., 2018; Matsumura et al., 2019).

There is emerging research that examines coaching interactions to identify discourse moves (Heineke, 2013), identities (Jones & Rainville, 2014), emotional implications of interactions (Hunt, 2016), macro-orientations towards teaching and learning (Haneda et al., 2019) and positionings of teachers and instructional approaches (Finkelstein, 2019; Green, 2024; Cantrell et al., 2024). These studies have shown the complexities of these adult-to-adult interactions in differences between intentions or perceptions of coaching and the enactment of those intentions, or in the tensions that arise through power dynamics and curricular or district mandates.

A common thread across these studies is the role of teacher agency—either real or perceived—in shaping their understanding and application of instructional practices (Bandura, 2001; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). For example, in Heineke’s study, despite the coaches’ dominance, teachers displayed agency by contextualizing discussions to align with their needs and those of their students. Collet (2012) observed that teacher agency developed progressively, as teachers appreciated opportunities to grow through deeper learning of effective practices. Conversely, in Hunt’s (2016) study, the lack of agency led teachers to adopt resistant or fearful stances toward instructional change.

Further, in our own previous research (Robertson et al., 2020a), we found that, whether intentionally or not, coaches shaped their discourse so that teachers of varied experience levels and dispositions towards coaching were positioned to be agentive and to engage in more equitable joint experimentation. While this previous study explored these interactions in university clinical settings with the researchers serving as coaches, the present study adds to this emerging research base by exploring agentive actions related to discourse, positionings, and orientations towards coaching of a district-based coach and teacher. In doing so, Fraser’s (1990) notion of the “public sphere” holds explanatory power for how Kathy did not ignore her own authority or agency as a coach, but instead, used it to control the flow of the conversations while granting Abby agency to lead the topical choices to be discussed.

4.1. Kathy’s Bracketed Authority

Throughout her interviews and retrospective think-alouds, Kathy seemed to value a horizontal flow of knowledge (Robertson et al., 2020b). Because this practice involves the equal prioritization of participant voices, it inherently undermines conventional power dynamics between the coach-as-expert and the teacher-as-learner relationship. However, prioritization of this dynamic seemed to cause some dissonance for Kathy, who also seemed aware of her own authority. For example, she positioned her perceived authority as a hindrance to establishing successful coaching relationships. However, she also seemed to successfully bracket her authority—at least to some extent—within the interactional space between coach and teacher. That is, she enacted her identity as coach in such a way that undermined her own authority and granted Abby agency.

This bracketing can be seen in the slightly differing ways Kathy and Abby expressed their value of trust and respect. For example, whereas Abby expressed that a lack of judgment was central to trust, Kathy’s emphasis was on confidentiality, which may reflect a perception of her own power. Kathy’s description of withholding non-pertinent information from administration points toward the authority a coach—which Kathy describes as “in-between” teachers and administration—is afforded via proximity to administration. Her subsequent willingness to maintain teacher confidentiality can be interpreted as an attempt to bracket the power inherent in her role as a coach.

Though Abby’s prioritization had more to do with a perceived lack of judgment from Kathy, this too may point towards perceptions of a coach’s power. Abby’s expressed confidence in Kathy’s neutral observations indicates that another coach might approach observations evaluatively. Thus, Kathy’s neutrality may be further evidence of the bracketing of her authority.

Moreover, Abby’s prioritization of access to information may demonstrate the importance of a coach’s bracketed authority within the interactional space. Abby described a perceived inability to embrace instructional suggestions without access to the resources from which they were prescribed. That is, a teacher might struggle to adjust her instruction solely on the basis of a coach’s authority. Here, Abby demonstrates that a coach might effectively bracket her authority by using resources as a proxy. Kathy also seems to demonstrate this through her positioning of herself as a communicator of data. She avoids evaluation or didactic practices by presenting Abby with data and allowing a horizontal flow of knowledge throughout joint inquiry tasks.

4.2. Abby: Agency Within Bounds

Though some might perceive Abby’s positioning as a learner in the coach–teacher dynamic as indicative of a lack of agency, this was not the case. Primarily, she did exert some level of agency through her status as an expert teacher, a positioning both she and Kathy set. For example, Abby felt that although the school’s administration expected novice teachers to participate in coaching, as a tenured teacher, her participation was voluntary. Throughout her coaching reflections, Kathy cited not only Abby’s experience but also her introspection as a justification for the space and freedom she afforded to her in the interactional space. Moreover, the substance of Abby’s reflections was frequently determinant of the coaching agenda. In this way, though Kathy made more topical episode initiations, Abby arguably exerted more control over their conferences.

However, Abby’s agency was bounded by parameters largely set by the school’s administration and, by extension, perhaps Kathy. For example, though in her first coaching reflection Kathy said that “Abby references the HLP, because she likes studying them and working them” (line 86), in her pre-interview Kathy framed them as a district-set protocol: “with the other more experienced teachers, we do the framework of the HLPs” (lines 77–78). While Abby may enjoy studying HLPs, it was not her agency that led to their use but rather the district’s. This was also evident in Kathy’s references to state assessments and other curricula provided by the district. For example, in her pre-interview, Kathy said that “the lens of like state assessment and that kind of stuff “partly informed her coaching agenda (lines 201–203).

Even though Abby’s agency was somewhat limited by the district, and the fact that Kathy’s position as a coach imbued her with more authority than did Abby’s position as a teacher, both Abby and Kathy characterized the coaching relationship as a successful one. In a sense, this was enabled via the proactive invocation of Kathy’s authority —not through the neutralization of it. Based on her interviews and coaching reflections, Kathy seemed cognizant of the authority her position carried. In turn, this cognizance enabled Kathy to make decisions that maximized a horizontal flow of knowledge. For example, Kathy made nearly all topical episode initiations, which is, perhaps, inherent to the role of coach, or at least to both Kathy’s and Abby’s perception of the role; they both positioned the coach as a facilitator. However, Kathy used these initiations to make open-ended elicitations, which in turn allowed Abby agency over the coaching cycle. In this way, Kathy did not so much bracket her authority as she did leverage it to share agency with Abby.

4.3. Limitations and Implications

Our findings hold several implications pertaining to successful literacy coaching. First, our analysis of positioning and discourse within the interactional space—or “public sphere”—revealed that there are, in fact, hierarchical differences separating coach and teacher within a coaching relationship. We sought to understand how these differences manifested within the interactional space and found that, while Kathy was not able to bracket the authority her position imbued her with, she was able to use her authority to enable Abby’s agency and voice. This finding seems to imply that while it may not be possible for a person to discard her subjectivities, it is possible to operationalize them within a coaching relationship to create a horizontal flow of knowledge. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that, at least for this dyad, a horizontal flow of knowledge is essential to a successful coaching relationship.

It is important to note, however, that while we gleaned important findings from our analysis of this dyad, the nature of this study carries some limitations. For instance, our analysis was of only one dyad and therefore does not examine important social factors that might impact a coach–teacher relationship. For example, both the coach and the teacher in this study identified as white women. While it is likely that gender and ethnicity may impact positioning and discourse, our dataset did not enable the examination of these factors. Further, the teacher in this dyad was a veteran teacher, a positioning both she and the coach used to maximize the horizontal flow of knowledge within the interactional space. This dynamic would almost certainly vary between a coach and a novice teacher, a factor our continued analysis of other data will examine.

Lastly, this study aimed to analyze the positioning and discourse of a coach–teacher dyad that self-identified as successful. However, whether the coaching was successful was outside the scope of our work here. For example, we did not observe the teacher’s classroom or collect student data, both of which have traditionally acted as measures of successful coaching. That said, our goal was not to understand how a coaching relationship impacts classroom practices but rather to identify the discursive elements present in a coaching relationship that both parties felt positively about. To that end, our findings support the notion that positioning and flow of knowledge play important roles in coaching relationships that teachers and coaches choose to actively engage in over sustained periods of time.