How well do you need to know a teacher to coach them well?

I found myself pondering that question after reading Randi Brown’s Edutopia article on supporting teacher growth through trusting relationships. Brown describes two threads that exist in a coaching conversation. One is visible—the lesson plan, instructional strategies, student engagement, assessment results, and the teacher’s goals. The other is less visible. It includes the teacher’s confidence, expertise, previous experiences, concerns, and perhaps their nervousness about receiving feedback. Brown calls this second layer the “invisible thread.”

That distinction connects strongly with my belief that effective coaching begins with the teacher’s agenda. Knowing the teacher’s agenda is more than knowing what a teacher wants to accomplish. It’s also knowing why it matters to them and how it connects to some of those invisible threads like concerns, past experiences, and confidence.

Knowing how to ask questions is important. Knowing enough about the teacher to recognize when to probe, when to pause, when to challenge, and when to simply listen may be even more important. Perhaps trust in coaching grows from the teacher experiencing, “You know me well enough to coach me.”

“We don’t ask questions because we have good questions. We ask questions because we’ve listened carefully enough to know what question the teacher is ready to consider.”

Trust isn’t simply a prerequisite for coaching; trust develops as teachers experience that the coach knows them and uses that knowledge respectfully. That doesn’t mean that knowing a teacher leads a coach to avoid challenging conversations. In fact, knowing may make challenge more productive.

Joellen Killion’s distinction between light and heavy coaching provides an interesting lens here. Light coaching tends to focus on providing support, resources, encouragement, and assistance. Heavy coaching pushes more directly toward examining beliefs, assumptions, decisions, and their impact on student learning. Knowing the teacher and their agenda helps a coach recognize when support is called for and when challenge might generate important learning.

The question isn’t simply, “Should I coach light or coach heavy?” Perhaps an earlier question is, “What do I know—and what do I still need to find out—about this teacher?”

A teacher asking, “Can you give me some ideas for getting students to participate more?” has made a request. But the request doesn’t necessarily reveal the teacher’s agenda. Before offering strategies, I may need to find out more.

What does greater participation look like to this teacher? Why is it important now?  What is the teacher noticing about particular students? How confident is the teacher that change is possible? Is the teacher looking for a quick strategy or wondering about something deeper concerning student ownership of learning?

Those questions aren’t delaying the coaching. They are the coaching. Finding out isn’t something that happens before the coaching conversation. It is part of the coaching conversation. In asking those questions, a coach begins to discover some of the invisible thread that can inform what happens next.

A coach exploring an invisible thread might proceed like this:

Teacher: Can you give me some ideas for getting more students involved in our class discussions?

Coach: Tell me what you’re noticing that’s causing you to think about participation.

Teacher: It’s mostly the same five or six kids who voluntarily jump into a discussion. I can get everyone participating if I call on them, but that’s not really what I want. I want them to want to contribute. I’m starting to wonder whether I’ve created too much dependence on me.

Coach: So, it’s more than getting students involved. You want students assuming more responsibility for contributing to the learning that’s happening in the room.

Teacher: Yeah. I don’t want to have to keep pulling responses from them. When I ask a question, most of them wait. They know that eventually I’ll call on someone, or I’ll fill the silence myself.

Coach: You’re wondering if some of what you’re doing to increase participation may actually be reinforcing their dependence on you.

Teacher: Yes. That’s the part I’m struggling with. I’ve always thought that keeping the discussion moving was my responsibility. Silence is uncomfortable. If no one answers, I start thinking that my question wasn’t clear or they don’t understand. So, I step in to get things on track.

Coach: So, stepping back may mean sitting with some discomfort—some silence and uncertainty—while students figure out that you aren’t going to do the work for them.

Teacher: That’s probably true. I think I’d have to get comfortable being uncomfortable for a while.

Coach: Your students may need to do the same thing. What might you do differently that would communicate to students that participation in the discussion is their responsibility rather than yours?

Teacher: I could stop calling on students so quickly. Maybe give them time to talk with a partner first. I could also tell them directly that I want them responding to each other rather than waiting for me to manage the conversation.

Coach: You’ve identified some possibilities to try. What if I observed the students’ responses as you try them out and added my observations to yours? We could see if things are moving in the direction you want.

The invisible thread wasn’t apparent in the teacher’s opening request. What initially sounded like a request for participation strategies gradually revealed the teacher’s desire for greater student responsibility, her concern that her own actions might be creating dependence, and her discomfort with the silence that changing those actions might require.

So, how well do you need to know a teacher in order to coach them well?

What a coach really needs is a commitment to be continually finding out. Each coaching conversation provides an opportunity to know more—to discover what the teacher values, what they are working toward, what concerns them, what they are confident about, where they are uncertain, and what they may be ready to question. That knowing helps us decide when to listen, when to probe, when to support, and when to challenge.

And each time teachers experience a coach seeking to understand before responding, another piece of the invisible thread becomes visible. Trust grows. Maybe the most important message a coach can communicate is simply, “I want to keep getting to know you so that the coaching we do together matters to you.”

Coaching begins with knowing. And knowing begins—and continues—with finding out.

Instructional coaches are often valued for their experience, instructional knowledge, and ability to support teacher growth. Yet one of the most important qualities a coach can bring to a coaching conversation is intellectual humility.

Researchers define intellectual humility as recognizing that our beliefs, interpretations, and conclusions may be incomplete or even mistaken. It is the willingness to acknowledge that our understanding is always evolving, and that new evidence or perspectives may lead us to rethink what we believe. Intellectual humility is not a lack of confidence or expertise. Rather, it is the recognition that no matter how much we know, there is always more to discover.

For instructional coaches, this mindset is especially valuable. Coaches regularly observe classrooms, listen to teachers describe successes and struggles, and interpret evidence about teaching and learning. Without intellectual humility, it is easy to assume we understand what happened or to rush toward solutions based on our own experiences. With intellectual humility, however, coaches approach conversations with curiosity rather than certainty.  In doing so, they create space for teachers to think more deeply about their own practice instead of simply accepting someone else’s interpretation.

Intellectual humility doesn’t diminish a coach’s credibility, it strengthens it. Teachers are more likely to engage in honest reflection when they experience a coach who is genuinely interested in learning alongside them rather than demonstrating expertise. A coach’s willingness to question assumptions, consider alternative explanations, and remain open to being surprised, models the very reflective habits we hope teachers will develop.

Several years ago, I wrote about intellectual humility as an essential component of educator reflection. Revisiting the topic, I’m increasingly convinced that intellectual humility is equally foundational to effective coaching. It shapes not only how coaches think, but also the kinds of conversations they create. Warren Berger, author of The Book of Beautiful Questions, offers four questions that provide a powerful framework for coaches seeking to cultivate this important coaching stance.

1. Do I think more like a soldier or a scout?

Soldiers defend positions, protect conclusions, and look for evidence that confirms what they already believe. Scouts explore. They gather information, remain open to surprises, and seek the most accurate understanding of the terrain.

Effective coaching requires a scout mindset. Before entering a classroom or beginning a post-conference, coaches benefit from asking themselves, “Am I trying to confirm what I expect to see, or am I genuinely curious about what I might discover?” A scout understands that every classroom contains complexities that cannot be fully understood through a single observation or assumption.

Rather than entering an observation convinced they already know what the issue is, the coach remains open, observant, and curious. During the post-conference, the coach begins not by sharing an interpretation but by asking, “What did you notice?” and “How did what you observe compare with what you anticipated?” Those questions invite shared discovery rather than predetermined conclusions. As both teacher and coach explore what occurred, reflection becomes a joint investigation instead of a search for confirmation.

2. Would I rather be right, or would I rather understand?

The desire to be right can quietly undermine a coaching conversation. When coaches become attached to their interpretation of what occurred, they may stop listening for new information. Intellectual humility shifts the coach’s goal from proving an explanation to developing a deeper understanding alongside the teacher.

Effective coaches recognize that a lesson can be experienced differently by the teacher, the students, and the observer. Rather than assuming their perspective is the most accurate, they seek to understand the teacher’s intentions and experiences and compare those with the evidence that emerged.

Instead of beginning with, “Here’s what I noticed,” the coach begins with questions such as, “As the lesson unfolded, when did it match the movie you imagined while planning?” and “Where did it differ?” Those questions help coach and teacher build a shared understanding before drawing conclusions.

3. Do I seek out opposing views?

Intellectual humility means recognizing that our first interpretation may not be the only—or the best—explanation. Coaches strengthen reflection by intentionally exploring alternative perspectives before settling on conclusions.

Effective coaches remain curious about explanations they may not have initially considered. They recognize that the teacher’s thinking, students’ experiences, and classroom context may reveal possibilities that were not immediately apparent during an observation.

The coach deliberately resists settling too quickly on a single explanation. Rather than assuming a cause or shortcoming, the coach asks, “What are some other possible explanations for what we observed?” or “What might your students say was happening during that part of the lesson?” Exploring multiple perspectives often uncovers new insights and leads to richer reflection than accepting the first explanation that comes to mind.

4. Do I welcome discovering that I was mistaken?

Perhaps the strongest demonstration of intellectual humility is the willingness to revise our thinking when new evidence emerges. Coaches who are comfortable changing their minds model the very reflection they hope to encourage in teachers.

Every coaching conversation is an opportunity to learn. Sometimes evidence gathered during the post-conference reveals that the coach’s initial interpretation was incomplete. Rather than defending that interpretation, intellectually humble coaches embrace the opportunity to deepen their understanding.

A coach may enter the conversation believing students struggled because directions were unclear. The teacher initially believes the students simply weren’t prepared. As they examine student work together, both realize that the task required background knowledge the students had not yet developed. Together, they discover an explanation neither had considered.

The four questions create a practical framework for coaching with intellectual humility:

• Enter with curiosity.
• Listen to understand before interpreting.
• Expand the conversation by considering alternative explanations.
• Be willing to change your thinking along the way.

Coaching with intellectual humility does not mean coaches set aside their expertise. It means they use that expertise in service of inquiry rather than certainty. They seek to understand before they seek to explain. In this coaching stance, curiosity replaces certainty, understanding precedes judgment, multiple perspectives are welcomed, and both coach and teacher expect to leave the conversation thinking more deeply than when they entered.

Perhaps the greatest demonstration of intellectual humility is a coach entering every conversation expecting to learn something they did not know when it began.

Last year, a school made personalized, student-centered learning a major focus of professional learning. Through workshops, staff meetings, PLCs, and coaching conversations, teachers explored how to:

• increase student voice and choice
• tailor instruction to learners’ strengths, needs, and interests
• create more collaborative and authentic learning experiences
• support students in setting goals and reflecting on their learning

The purpose was clear: not simply to implement new instructional strategies, but to create learning experiences where students increasingly assume responsibility for their own learning through greater voice, choice, reflection, and goal setting.

Throughout the year, some teachers experimented with these practices and began to see promising results. Others watched with interest, tried a few ideas, or chose to wait. Some, due to past experiences, even wondered if this would still be a focus when the new year begins.  A single change in school administration can mean a different focus.

Now a new school year begins. The expectation is no longer to simply learn about personalized learning.  Implementation is an expectation.

At this point, it’s tempting for leaders to ask, “How do we get everyone to believe this will work?”

That may be the wrong first question.

A more productive question is, “How do we help teachers experience enough success with these practices that their confidence and commitment grow?”

Thomas Guskey’s work on teacher change offers an important answer to that question. We often assume that if teachers believe in an innovation, they will implement it. Guskey’s research suggests the change process more commonly works in the opposite direction. Rather than beliefs changing first, teachers’ beliefs frequently change after they implement a new practice and experience evidence that it benefits students.

Instead of thinking about change as:

Beliefs → Practices → Student Outcomes

Guskey proposed a different sequence:

Professional Learning → Changes in Classroom Practice → Improvements in Student Learning → Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes

The implication for coaches and school leaders is significant. The early goal of implementation is not to convince every teacher that the initiative will succeed. The goal is to create conditions where teachers can implement new practices, receive support while doing so, and gather evidence of how those practices influence students. As teachers begin seeing students more engaged, more reflective, more collaborative, and assuming greater responsibility for their learning, confidence grows. Those successful experiences become the foundation for lasting commitment based on a new belief.

Changes in students’ learning production behaviors become the earliest evidence that the new practice is taking hold. They provide teachers with important feedback on the value of the change, long before end-of-unit assessments or standardized test results are available.

Guskey’s approach moves a coach’s focus from “selling a belief” to generating experimentation and reflection. A coach/teacher conversation might proceed like this:

Teacher: I understand the value of student-centered instruction for students to develop learning-to-learn skills. I just don’t see how it fits in my classes. I already struggle to get through the curriculum. Having students explore, debate, and discuss takes time. If I add that, something else has to give.

Coach: It sounds like your concern isn’t whether student-centered learning has value. It’s whether it can work within the instructional time you have.

Teacher: Exactly. If I fall behind, I’m the one who has to answer for it.

Coach: Time is a concern for most teachers. I’m curious, when you picture student-centered learning, what part of it do you think would have the greatest impact on your students learning if you could make it work?

Teacher: Probably having students explain and defend and even argue their thinking with each other, before having any input from me.

Coach: What makes that the concept stand out for you?

Teacher: Too many students wait for me to tell them whether they’re right instead of questioning themselves and each other.

Coach: Suppose you chose one upcoming lesson and we explored, “What do we gain, and what does it cost?”  when generating increased student reflection and engagement. Is there one lesson coming up where you’d envision a benefit from students doing that reflection?

Teacher: Probably next week’s lesson starting a new unit on variables.

Coach: Rather than redesigning the entire lesson, what if we identified one twenty-minute segment where students worked in pairs or triads to develop or compare strategies before you explained them?

Teacher: That still takes extra time.

Coach: Likely. What you’d be looking to decide is “are the benefits worth the costs?” What student behaviors would tell you those twenty minutes were a worthwhile investment? What teacher moves might increase the likelihood of seeing those behaviors? Do you think 20 classroom minutes is a fair risk to take?

Teacher- Sure. I am going to have to describe some of the things I am exploring in my professional growth plan with my principal. This sounds like a doable first step.

Coach: I look forward to seeing what we find out. Think about one or two benefits that would be a valuable payoff for this investment of instructional time and we’ll meet to explore a design to test out. I’ll do a little search for some possibilities in the meantime.

Whatever the change your school is asking teachers to implement this year, keep returning to this question:

“How do we create experiences that allow teachers to discover the value of this work for themselves?”

The role of instructional coaches, teacher leaders, and administrators is not to convince teachers that change will succeed. It is to support thoughtful experimentation, encourage reflection, and help teachers notice the impact their decisions have on students.

When teachers begin seeing changes in students’ learning production behaviors—and those behaviors lead to improved learning outcomes—their commitment to new instructional practices becomes rooted in belief rather than compliance.

Support the process. The viewpoint will follow.

“We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience.” Whether or not Dewey wrote those exact words in that exact form is debated, but the concept runs throughout his work.

• Experience alone does not guarantee learning.
• Reflection turns experience into learning.
• Inquiry begins when we encounter uncertainty.

This diagram from the Great Pedagogical Thinkers website illustrates where reflection fits in our learning and understanding.

If reflection is what transforms experience into learning, then generating reflection becomes one of the most important functions of coaching. The value of a coach is not found primarily in providing answers or solutions. It is found in creating opportunities for teachers to think more deeply about their planning, their instructional decisions, and their students’ learning. Reflection matters because it influences decisions. Those decisions shape student learning behaviors, and student learning behaviors ultimately produce student learning.

Years back, when training mentors who supported first year teachers, I focused on their role of generating reflection. I suggested that the old saying, “Experience is the best teacher” was wrong. I promoted, “Experience with a mentor was the best teacher.” Experience is critical as identified as #1 in the diagram. A quality mentor magnifies the learning outcome from the experience by supporting reflection. The mentor assists in identifying evidence, data, or indicators and then often prompts with questions that support the mentee’s reflection on the experience. Reflection will occur without a mentor or coach. However, learning is often accelerated when another observer notices evidence, patterns, or possibilities that the mentee might otherwise miss.

Donald Schön (The Reflective Practitioner) used the term reflective practitioner to describe professionals who think critically about their actions while performing them—“reflection-in-action”—and afterwards—“reflection-on-action.” This approach encourages continuous learning from experience, particularly in fields where uncertainty and complexity defy rigid technical solutions. Schön’s description of fields where uncertainty and complexity defy rigid technical solutions captures the essence of teaching. It describes why I label teaching as a profession…… a field that requires continuous learning and experimentation.

With reflection-in-action, while teaching is taking place, a teacher observes student responses, notices confusion or engagement, interprets evidence, and makes adjustments in the moment. Reflecting while acting. Reflection-on-action occurs after the lesson, when a teacher looks back to analyze what happened, why it happened, and what they learned from the experience.

While Schön described reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, coaching often reveals a third form of reflection: reflection-before-action. This occurs during planning as teachers anticipate student responses, consider evidence they will gather, and draw on previous learning to shape upcoming instruction. That reflection may draw on experiences with current students as well as previous groups of learners.

Coaching often occurs in a sequence of a pre-observation conference, observation, and a post observation conference. In the ideal coaching process, the post conference becomes a pre-conference setting the stage for applying discoveries, insights, and possibilities into ongoing teacher learning.

When training for coaching skills, I stress that a quality pre-conference is the most important component. It establishes reflection that can extend throughout the coaching process. It is quite common that during a pre-conference, as a teacher is sharing a description of the learning activity that the coach will observe, they make a decision to modify the plan in some way. The modification is not based on anything the coach suggested. It emerges as the teacher has the opportunity to reflect on the planning previously done. (Reflection-before-action)

Reflection matters because it influences decisions. Those decisions shape student learning behaviors, and student learning behaviors ultimately produce student learning.

The teacher carries the reflection generated during the pre-conference into the learning activity with students. That heightens the teacher’s observation and reflection during instruction. If the teacher focused the coach on observing a specific element such as her questions or students conversations in small groups, the teacher is likely “extra aware” of those elements. That awareness may lead to the teacher modifying her actions in the moment. (Reflection-in action) Those teacher observations will extend into the post conference. (Reflection-after-action)

The post conference (Reflection-on-action) should create opportunities for teachers to build upon the reflections generated during the pre-conference and the lesson itself. Teacher reflection in the post conference requires teacher talk. Coaches should avoid a “report of observation data” and focus on how their observation can support the teacher’s thinking. I describe the post conference as a conversation where at least 50% of the talk should be the teacher’s voice. Reflection requires thinking, and thinking often becomes visible through talking. When teachers have opportunities to analyze evidence, explain decisions, and explore possibilities aloud, their learning deepens. A goal of getting to 75% teacher voice in the post-conference can increase teacher reflection and learning.

Effective coaching is not a single conversation. It is a continuous cycle of reflection that helps teachers learn before instruction, while instruction is occurring, and after instruction is complete. Effective coaches can extend teacher reflection and learning beyond the more formal coaching conferences with brief classroom visits sharing observations or questions that encourage teachers to share insights or questions. Continuing the conversation extends the reflection and learning for teachers and their students.

Dewey’s insight remains powerful. Experience alone does not create learning. Teachers design hundreds of learning activities each year, but experience only becomes learning when reflection occurs. The real work of coaching is generating that reflection—before instruction, during instruction, and after instruction. When coaching creates reflection, experience becomes learning. When teachers learn, students benefit.

Multipliers, as Liz Wiseman identified (“Multipliers – How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter”) don’t simply recognize talent—they help it grow and spread. Perhaps that’s one of the most important roles of an instructional coach. Rather than identifying what teachers are missing, coaches are on the prowl for the capabilities that are already emerging. Noticing them, naming them and creating opportunities for those talents to become even more powerful and, ultimately, benefit colleagues and students beyond a single classroom.

Watch the Positive Psychology in Coaching and Professional Practices video (from Growth Coaching International) here.

Subscribe to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast on iTunes or visit BarkleyPD.com to find new episodes!

Podcast Transcript:

[00:00:00.340] – Steve [Intro]
Welcome to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast. As instructional coaches and school leaders, you are tasked with guiding continuous teacher growth to create student success. This podcast looks to support you with strategies from experienced guests, as well as my own insights that I’ve gathered over the years. I’m thrilled to have you with us. Thanks for tuning in.

[00:00:29.980] – Steve
The Multiplier Coach: Spotting, Naming, and Growing Teacher Talent. I remember years back when I was training mentors who were working with beginning teachers, we would watch a video of a new teacher and I would model a post-conference. The mentor trainees would frequently ask me how I had so many positive elements to share with the teacher. They were surprised when I told them that I spent most of my time looking for those positive elements. Finding a growth area for a new teacher doesn’t take a lot of searching. Tracking how the teacher’s existing positive moves impacted student learning almost always provided a step to build from, and it often connected to an area where improvement could have a big impact. I’ve recently gone back to reread the revised and updated “Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter” by Liz Wiseman. She would describe my approach with those new teachers as focusing on being a multiplier rather than a diminisher. Multipliers are the leaders who inspire others to stretch themselves to deliver results that surpass expectations. They use their intelligence to amplify the smarts and capabilities of the people around them. When these leaders walk into a room, they generate participation, ideas flow, and problems get solved.

[00:02:14.540] – Steve
Diminishers are leaders who drain intelligence, energy, and capability from the people around them. And they always have a need to be the smartest person in the room. These folks are idea killers. They are energy sappers. They diminish talent and commitment. Multipliers spot talent. They name talent, and they create opportunities for that talent to grow and benefit others. Let’s look at each of those elements through the lens of coaching. Weissman identifies the importance of leaders spotting talents and naming them so that a person is aware of the strength and its impact. I often describe many teachers as being unconsciously skilled. They can be unaware of the talent or skill that is influencing teaching and learning success at any given moment. I observed a beginning teacher and noted that as she began a presentation of information to students, the students were highly focused on her. When we met afterwards to debrief, I mentioned that I noticed how focused the students were. I asked her what she thought had happened to generate that focus. She mentioned her expectations and that the students were interested in the topic. I then ask, “Do you ever think of yourself as being on stage at that time?

[00:03:52.680] – Steve
The way you positioned yourself, your body language, facial expressions, and voice grabbed the students’ attention.” She smiled shyly, and she said, “I guess I never think of that.” Unconsciously talented. In a video, Positive Psychology in Coaching and Professional Practices, Christian Van Nieuwburg of Growth Coaching International interviews Dr. Robert Biswas-Diener a positive psychology researcher who described the role of coach as strength spotter. You’ll find the link to the whole interview in this podcast lead-in. Listen as Robert shares his thoughts on spotting strengths.

[00:04:45.920] – Christian
As you mentioned strengths and strengths use is getting more adopted in many educational contexts, do you want to say something more about how educators or leaders can just bring strengths use into their everyday practice?

[00:05:07.340] – Robert
Yeah, absolutely. So first of all, I think there’s great utility in focusing on strengths. Like everything in positive psychology, I don’t think it needs to be an exclusive focus on strengths. It doesn’t mean, of course, that we’re going to ignore weaknesses or areas of deficiency or just, you know, relabel them, you know, areas of development or growth, because the truth is, I think your strengths are your areas of development or growth. And certainly there’s some research suggesting that we make great gains in developing our strengths, in part because we’re more passionate about them, they’re more energizing, we’re more motivated. I personally am pretty unmotivated to change my weaknesses because I’m not all that interested in them. What I tend to do is just avoid the situations that would bring my weaknesses to play, and instead I double down on the things that I already have some potential in, and I find that I make good gains there.

[00:06:06.850] – Christian
One of your great strengths, Robert, is spotting strengths in others. I, you know, we work together sometimes, and I’ve seen you do this in a way that’s so incisive and insightful and can really land with the person that you’re talking to. So can you say a bit more about strength spotting and in others?

[00:06:32.610] – Robert
Sure. I’ll tell you. So first of all, just strength spotting is just looking for strengths in other people. And kind of like how I said, hold these frameworks from positive psychology loosely, I would hold the strength label loosely. We’re not interested in pigeonholing people with labels or in demonstrating how correct I, Robert, am. But, you know, if I met a student or if I met one of you, I would kind of be on the prowl mentally. Just, you know, I wonder, I wonder what’s going on. I wonder what the best you is. The first thing that I like about that is that it makes me pretty positively disposed towards you. I’m not looking at, oh, what are your politics? How do you vote? You know, who are you rude to? You know, there’s, there’s, there’s plenty to divide us. I’m basically looking for, what could I admire in you? What could I see that I could learn from, that I think could be laudable in some way? So I’m just looking for the good in you. And again, not in a Pollyanna way. I recognize that all of us are complex and we all have some, you know, minorly ugly qualities about us, myself included.

[00:07:51.430] – Robert
But I just come in sort of with that mindset. And then I just see where people are really excited and where they seem to excel. Sometimes, in all honesty, I just make up labels for what I’m seeing. But most often, I’m using labels that are kind of commonly understood, like, oh, you’re a pretty persuasive person. Oh, you explain things really clearly. You’re a great explainer. Oh, you’re really funny, right? Strength in humor, whatever it is. And I don’t buy into the idea that there are, say, 24 strengths. I think there are hundreds of everyday strengths, and you just have to have a vocabulary for it. So for example, a strength that I think is common among teachers that I don’t think is on any of the formal strengths assessment, I call it antenna, like a bug has an antenna. And that is, you’re kind of taking the sweep of the entire room, right? You’re thinking collectively, are my students getting this? Are they engaged? Are they paying attention? Are they distracted? Who slept well? Who didn’t? Who’s passing a note? Who’s fooling around? Where are the side conversations happening? And I’ve seen teachers that can be, you know, writing up on the board with their back to the class, and they know.

[00:09:20.300] – Robert
And they just turn around and they’re like, “You two.” And I’m just like, “How did they know this?” And I think it’s because they have the strength in antenna, which I would describe as being particularly attuned to your attentional periphery and being able to see sort of the whole gestalt, you know, rather than just, you know, every little detail. And it’s just wonderful because once you introduce a word like that, now we could all have a conversation about it. Like, who do you know that has antenna? How do they use it effectively? Are there, are there potential downsides to it? Can they be too perceptive and make people feel guarded or self-conscious? You know, like, what would be the right, you know, amount to use that? But I think in just bringing these kinds of discussions in, you end up having closer relationships, you’re more validating, and you could potentially end up working better together.

[00:10:18.780] – Steve
I love that phrase, “on the prowl for strengths.” I hear Weissman echo the same idea. Multipliers don’t wait for talent to announce itself. They actively look for it, notice it, and help people recognize it in themselves. It’s a reminder for a coach as an observation begins. We should always be asking, “What strengths can I spot?” Sometimes that strength is instructional. Sometimes it’s relational. Sometimes it’s the teacher’s ability to anticipate a student misconception or to create psychological safety. The coach’s job is to notice it. How are those strengths positively impacting students? How might those strengths be leveraged to generate additional teacher growth and student success? Beyond spotting and identifying strengths, Weissman encourages expanding opportunities where a talent can grow and benefit others. While diminishers might focus on fixing weaknesses, “Multipliers build strengths until they become organizational assets.” I really like that thought. Multipliers don’t stop at recognizing strengths. They build those strengths until they become organizational assets. Think about that. A teacher’s strength no longer belongs only to that teacher. It becomes something the entire faculty can learn from. Increasing a teacher’s understanding of their talents can increase confidence in sharing practices with colleagues focused on success for all students.

[00:12:21.360] – Steve
Sometimes that opportunity is inviting a colleague into one’s classroom for a demonstration lesson. Sometimes it’s co-planning with another teacher. Sometimes it’s mentoring someone new to the profession. Sometimes it’s simply facilitating 5 minutes of a PLC discussion around an insight that a teacher has gained. A multiplier coach doesn’t simply help teachers become better. A multiplier coach helps teachers become resources for other teachers. But a caution here: not every teacher immediately welcomes these opportunities. Some see them as extra work, and others worry that colleagues will interpret the invitation as showing off or as increased scrutiny. That’s why coaches need to frame these opportunities around continued learning rather than around recognition. The invitation isn’t, “You’ve arrived.” It’s, “Here’s another opportunity to grow.” That’s the reason that the risk or extra work is worth it. For example, I’ve always felt and heard from many other teachers that when you mentor a new teacher, you as mentor frequently learn more than the mentee. Personally, I discovered that I grew as much or more than my mentee. While I was explaining my thinking, I became more conscious of decisions that I had been making automatically, perhaps for years. Coaches need to build their own talents at being multipliers of teachers’ talents.

[00:14:17.030] – Steve
What are those talents that support a coach’s success in generating teachers’ investments in continuous growth? Perhaps it’s noticing subtle moments that others miss. Perhaps it’s asking questions that uncover thinking. Or perhaps seeing potential before teachers recognize it themselves. Creating psychological safety where teachers are willing to stretch themselves. How do you, as a coach, become aware of your strengths and talents? How might you gather feedback that has a multiplying effect on your coaching impact? I often state that coaches should be the most coached people in a school. Here’s certainly one reason. Can you identify colleagues who can be your multiplier, helping you build upon your talents and increasing your multiplying leadership? Liz Weissman reminds us that multipliers don’t simply recognize talent, they help it grow and spread. Perhaps that’s one of the most important roles of an instructional coach. We’re not in classrooms primarily to find what teachers are missing. We’re on the prowl for the capabilities that are already emerging. We notice them, we name them, then we create opportunities for those talents to become even more powerful. And ultimately benefit colleagues and students beyond the single teacher’s classroom. So as you leave your next coaching conversation, ask yourself, what strength did I spot?

[00:16:23.930] – Steve
Did I name it clearly enough that the teacher now recognizes it? And what opportunity did I or might I create for that strength to grow and benefit others. That’s how coaches become multipliers. As always, thanks for listening, and feel free to reach out with questions or comments at barkleypd.com.

[00:16:55.230] – Steve [Outro]
Thanks for listening, folks. I’d love to hear what you’re pondering. You can find me on Twitter or LinkedIn @SteveBarkley. Or send me your questions and find my videos and blogs at barkleypd.com.

During a recent podcast conversation with Mitch Weisburgh, the author of “Mindshifting: Stop Your Brain from Sabotaging Your Happiness and Success,”, I found myself connecting his ideas to a challenge instructional coaches and school leaders frequently encounter. At times, teachers come to a coach asking, “What can I do?” while simultaneously believing there is little they can do. They have already concluded that the situation is unlikely to change, that the causes are beyond their control, or that there simply isn’t a workable solution. Before they can consider new strategies or a different approach, they frequently need to rethink how they are understanding the challenge.

• Students aren’t engaged.
• A lesson didn’t go as planned.
• A new instructional strategy isn’t producing the desired results.
• PLC members are not collaborating

Weisburgh described mindshifting as recognizing when our thinking has become trapped in habitual patterns, assumptions, or automatic reactions that limit our options. Rather than immediately searching for an answer, mindshifting invites us to step back, examine the lens through which we are viewing the situation, and consider alternative perspectives. When the lens changes, new possibilities often emerge.

As coaches, we frequently recognize possible next steps because our experience has provided us with ideas, strategies, and examples that might help. The temptation is to move quickly toward offering a solution to the problem. But our coaching experience has reinforced an important coaching adage: go slow to go fast. The quality of coaching is often determined less by the coach’s knowledge of how to solve a teacher’s problem and more by the coach’s ability to generate reflection that leads to possibilities.

Effective coaching questions slow down thinking. They create space between an automatic conclusion and a thoughtful examination of what might actually be occurring.

Consider a teacher who states, “My students just aren’t engaged.” A coach offering strategies to increase engagement is assuming that the teacher’s diagnosis is accurate and complete. If it isn’t, the teacher is ill-prepared to effectively assess a coach’s suggestion.

A coach seeking to promote a mindshift might instead ask:

What are students doing that leads you to conclude they are disengaged?

Are all students demonstrating the same behaviors?

When during the lesson did you notice the greatest engagement?

What might students say was happening for them during that time?

What else might explain what you observed?

Notice that none of these questions provide a solution. Instead, they encourage the teacher to examine assumptions, consider additional evidence, and explore alternative interpretations. That shift in perspective is what opens the door to new possibilities.

The conversation might sound something like this. The coach does not begin by offering engagement strategies. The coach first helps the teacher examine the assumptions embedded in the statement, “My students just aren’t engaged.”

Coach: What are you seeing that leads you to describe students as not engaged?

Teacher: Many aren’t participating. When I ask questions, only a few students offer to respond.

Coach: Are all students demonstrating the same behaviors?

Teacher: No. There are always a handful who participate, but more of the class doesn’t.

Coach: Tell me about the students who are participating. What are they doing?

Teacher: They’re answering questions, talking with their partners, and volunteering ideas.

Coach: During the lesson, was there a point when more students seemed involved?

Teacher: When students were discussing examples with partners, there was more energy in the room.

Coach: What was different about that part of the lesson?

Teacher: They were doing the talking instead of listening to me explain.

Coach: If I asked students what was happening for them during that portion of the lesson, what might they say?

Teacher: They’d probably say they had something to figure out and someone to talk with about it.

Coach: What do you make of that?

Teacher: It could be that they’re less engaged during the parts of the lesson when I’m doing most of the talking. They need the information, but maybe I’ve been thinking too narrowly about how they get it. I’m wondering how I could involve them more while they’re learning it.

Coach: How does that shift the question you’re trying to answer?

Teacher: I’m wondering how I might redesign parts of the lesson so students are doing more of the thinking and processing.

Coach: What possibilities come to mind?

Teacher: I could shorten my explanations and have students discuss key ideas with a partner before moving on. I might also have students generate examples rather than providing them myself.

Coach: Both of those ideas seem connected to what you noticed about students being more engaged when they had something to figure out together. I wonder what might happen if students encountered an example first and worked in pairs to identify patterns before your explanation.

Teacher: That could be interesting. They’d be doing some of the thinking before I introduced the concept.

Coach: Is that a possibility worth testing? What would you want to watch for if you tried it?

Teacher: I’d want to see whether more students participate in the discussion and whether they ask different kinds of questions during the explanation.

At this point, the coach is no longer helping the teacher reframe the challenge. The coach has joined the teacher in exploring possibilities. The possibilities emerge from the teacher’s observations and thinking rather than from the coach’s expertise. The conversation has shifted from solving a problem to designing an experiment.

Notice the mindshift that occurred. The teacher began with the conclusion, “My students just aren’t engaged.” Through reflection, that conclusion became a new question: “How might I redesign parts of the lesson, so students are doing more of the thinking and processing?”

When conclusions become questions, possibilities emerge.

By slowing down, examining assumptions, and creating space for reflection, coaches help teachers move beyond habitual thinking and discover new questions worth exploring. Those mindshifts often become the starting point for meaningful learning and change.