One of the interesting discussions that often comes up in the coaching arena is around the role of pre-defined techniques and the extent to which they help or hinder a teacher’s professional development. I’ve enjoyed exploring this issue with Jim Knight, Josh Goodrich and others who approach the discussion from different angles.
One approach is to suggest that a coaching process should start with each teacher’s context; their reality; their goals; their students and curriculum – and to build up actions around the specific problems they encounter as individual teachers. Here, pre-determined sets of ideas might not seem to fit well; we can’t just impose a fixed solution, shoe-horning it into the situation. The notion of seeking ‘fidelity to the technique’ can seem alien or inappropriate. People are individuals; contexts are unique. However, over time, we might find we’re often exploring similar issues with multiple people and our knowledge of possible solutions from other situations informs our coaching process for the current one.
Another approach is to suggest that a significant proportion of a successful teacher’s craft is comprised of well-known, definable techniques that follow common paths with identifiable steps. It’s not that techniques are imposed, it’s that teacher issues are actually very common and, rather than needing to reinvent ideas each time as if they are totally unique, we use defined techniques as the framework for understanding and communicating the problems and the solutions up front, perhaps pre-emptively. Fidelity to the technique is helpful much like the value of rehearsing the music from a score to the point that you are fluent enough to play jazz with it – keeping the essence whilst allowing the freedom to adapt and respond.
