Coaching Undergraduates:

Abstract

The overall aim of this paper is to provide a holistic orientation to the practice of person-centered coaching while providing tangible methods that faculty and advisors in higher education may be able to integrate into their professional practices. This conceptual paper explores the theoretical and practical intersections of coaching and teaching, presenting a flexible modality to support student-centered learning. The author provides readers with general guidance and templates for goal setting, problem solving, and assessment that practitioners may adapt to their own contexts.

Keywords: coaching, teaching, learning, assessment, advising, undergraduates

Introduction

This paper provides a general exploration and explanation of coaching practice; a theoretical and evidence-based rationale for integrating coaching into instructional or advising contexts with undergraduates; and a practical guide with adaptable templates.

Coaching in this paper is characterized by a Rogerian (Rogers, 1951), person-centered approach (Joseph, 2023) that emphasizes a client or student-determined agenda. The coach supports a deliberative experience that Cox (2012) describes as “a facilitated, dialogic, reflective learning process” (p. 1). The coach carefully provides questions and mirroring statements that further the client’s, student’s, or coachee’s^[1] ideation toward strategies and plans best suited to the coachee’s circumstance.

Coaching has been shown to result in affective and cognitive benefits for both individuals and organizations (R. J. Jones et al., 2016; S. Knowles, 2021). Additionally, coaching has been shown to support undergraduate persistence and retention (Bettinger & Baker, 2014; Lefdahl-Davis et al., 2018).

There are many commonalities between teaching and coaching, particularly regarding the practice and benefit of reflection, with clear applications for student-centered, experiential, and self-directed learning. Specific applications for goal setting, problem solving, and authentic assessment are proposed.

With greater clarity in the conception of coaching, coupled with theoretical parallels between a coaching practice and an educational one, practitioners may be better equipped to utilize the tools afforded by coaching. Through the templates outlined in this paper, practitioners may be able to adapt common coaching approaches to their professional practice. Coaching offers a wide range of benefits, with possible improvements in self-awareness; goal clarity and attainment; time management; and problem solving. In this paper, I argue that coaching can serve as an educational modality to support student-centered learning in 1:1 contexts as well as in peer learning settings.

Theory: Coaching and Education

What Is Coaching?

The practice of coaching is not universally understood by the lay public. Terms and practices are varied—life coach, career coach, executive coach—all of which are distinct from athletic coaching. There is a persistent lack of consensus regarding the scope and purpose of coaching (Caspi, 2005). The International Coaching Federation (ICF), the self-proclaimed “leading global organization for coaches and coaching”, defines coaching as:

partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential. The process of coaching often unlocks previously untapped sources of imagination, productivity and leadership. (n.d.-a)

This description of coaching draws on the work of Whitmore (1992), who distinguishes coaching from instruction, and Kimsey-House et al. (2018), who emphasize the collaborative and cooperative aspect of the coaching relationship. The coach and coachee are intentional co-equals in exploring goals and strategies that fit the coachee’s stated needs and interests. The coach practices a posture of both neutral contribution (input is offered for client consideration, not provided as guidance) and earnest faith in the coachee’s internal capacities. The latter stems from the Rogerian (Rogers, 1951) concept of the unmitigated positive regard; the coach chooses to believe that the coachee is the best and most capable person for identifying their own paths of action. Kimsey-House et al. (2018) describe this as the “fundamental belief” (p. 23) that people are capable and resourceful. It is from this mindset that the coach prompts the coachee to explore a given topic. The coach therefore does not see the coachee as deficient or requiring their direct assistance in the form of other modalities such as consulting, mentoring, or training, to attain progress or success.

Coaching can often be confused with therapy, mentoring, advising, consulting, or forms of individualized training, in public discourse and in private service offerings. The conflation of coaching with such related (though ultimately distinct) practices is also often present in academic literature. For example, in their exploration of librarians’ views of mentoring and coaching, Hussey & Campbell-Meier (2021) confuse coaching, mentoring, and training when they assert, “As with mentoring, coaching often involves senior professionals providing guidance for someone who needs to develop a specific skill or attribute” (p. 367). Similarly, Carmel and Paul (2015) align coaching with “psychoanalysis issues” and though they cite a coaching model developed by Huff et al. (2013), the “range of behavioral and other techniques to help the less experienced academic achieve a mutually identified set of goals, agreed formally or informally” (p. 483) lacks specificity and may be difficult for the uninitiated to operationalize. Similarly, Cheesebrough et al. (2020) state, “Modern-day coaching has evolved primarily from two main streams that flow together in modern times, including professions such as psychotherapy and organizational consulting” (p. 872). Alongside this assertion, however, they also accurately describe the practice of coaching as a client-led process facilitated by questions designed to support the coachee’s unique deliberation, a description this paper aligns with.

Due to such widespread misunderstandings of what constitutes coaching in both academic literature and the broader public, and for the purposes of this paper, I clarify that coaching is not therapy, consulting, mentoring, or training. Although coaching may borrow theoretically (Rogers, 2004) or methodologically (Rosengren, 2017) from counseling, coaches are not therapists^[2]. Coaching as described here is not meant to diagnose or treat clinical medical or mental health conditions. Indeed, representing it as such or doing so without proper training and credentialing represents an ethical breach of professionalism (Caspi, 2005; ICF Global Board of Directors, 2019; NEA, n.d.). Instead, it is the partnership of coach and coachee in the creation of strategies to achieve the coachee’s goals and interests.

Given the co-active stance that the coachee is fully capable of identifying strategies uniquely appropriate to their situation, it is antithetical to the coaching endeavor for the coach to provide their own expertise, which is the purpose of consulting, advising, and mentoring. Rather, the objective is to support the coachee’s cogitation and creativity, not to provide answers or prescriptions. This is likewise true with direct instruction in the form of teaching or training. Instructional modes designed primarily to inform or demonstrate may be complementary to coaching but are distinct from the facilitated, client-focused reflection that is the coaching engagement.

A final conceptual layer, of particular importance to the potential teacher-coach, is the practitioner’s ethical imperative to consider and acknowledge power dynamics. Dochy et al. (2022, Chapter 11) argue that this is particularly true in the context of giving feedback. In a student-teacher or advisor-advisee relationship, it may be impossible to fully embody a co-equal status between coach and coachee. This is a limitation that practitioners must be aware of. Instructors seeking to provide coaching must gain informed consent to engage in coaching, and provide assurances of confidentiality (Brennan et al., 2023; Wasylyshyn, 2003) to the degree that this is possible in a classroom or advising setting. Trainers and teachers providing coaching should clarify which “hat” they are wearing with participants, to create psychological safety and mitigate possible conflicts of interest. Regarding the boundaries between coach, advisor, and mentor, Santiesteban et al. (2022) argue that “until both the learner and faculty adopt a unified definition, the trainer-trainee relationship will suffer from mutually unfulfilled expectations” (p. 2). For further practical guidelines, readers are encouraged to review the International Coaching Federation’s Code of Ethics (2019).

Theoretical Connections

Coaching bears several possible theoretical connections shared with educational practices. These include metacognition and critical reflection; self-directed learning; student-centered learning; and authentic assessment.

Coaching can be conceptualized as facilitated critical reflection. The coachee is prompted to engage in introspection and self-assessment in ways that mirror the reflective elements of experiential learning approaches such as those put forth by Kolb (1984) and Mezirow (1991). Drawing on experience as input, the learner engages in reflection to learn about themselves and/or their environment. Coaching prompts learners to verbally process or reflect, and supports them as they do so, giving cognitive time and space to gain a deeper understanding of experiences, thereby resulting in new insights. Furthermore, this response by the coachee can take the form of reflection-on-action (Schön, 1984), a process in which the coachee evaluates their execution of tasks or decisions.

Coaching often also prompts thinking about thinking, or metacognition, in which the client critically considers their own progress towards or process of learning new content or skills. These reflective modes (reflecting on experience, actions, and progress) all lend themselves to self-directed learning. Lennard (2010)^[3] references Brookfield’s (1986) conception of adult self-directed learners as a theoretical basis for coaching. Roša & Lace (2021) state:

Coaching is the process for facilitating individuals’ self-directed learning driven by a coach who triggers the individuals’ knowledge creation and transformation of experience for achieving their goals through disclosing their potential and enhancing awareness of new opportunities. (p. 1)

Costa & Garmston, in their book Cognitive Coaching: Developing Self-Directed Leaders and Learners (2015), explicitly link client-centered coaching to self-directedness in learners. Likewise, Bennett & Campone (2017) connect self-directed adult (i.e., andragogic) learning to the process of coaching. They cite Cox et al.’s (2014) alignment of Malcolm Knowles’ (1990) theory of andragogy to the coaching practice. This includes a client-determined agenda that aligns with the client’s own self-directed goals based on real-life experience and application. The coach supports the client or student in deliberating on their own goals through facilitated reflection, enabling them to self-assess and determine the course of action best suited to their needs. Coaching can also provide structure and accountability to continue pursuing learning outcomes. Learner contracts (Frank & Scharff, 2013; M. S. Knowles, 1991), which provide an explicit, written learning plan, may therefore provide a helpful scaffold for this work.

Coaching, as an intensely client-centered modality, naturally aligns with student-centered practices such as reducing teacher talk time and connecting content to students’ goals and priorities. Wong (2021) likens student-centered learning to students being “in the driver’s seat” (p. 93) guiding the direction and manner of the learning. To extend this metaphor, if the student is the pilot of their learning, the coach is their copilot, offering encouragement and asking questions so that the way forward may become clearer to the student.

Assessment is often understood in two subtypes: assessment for learning (formative assessment) and assessment of learning (summative assessment). Formative assessment represents along-the-way benchmarks and performative tasks that provide the instructor and the learner a means of gauging student progress in understanding and skills. This might include reflective journals or exit tickets. Summative, in contrast, typically takes place at the end of a course as an evaluation of milestones and accomplishments. Examples of this include a portfolio or final presentation. Assessment is considered authentic if it requires the student to reflect on and assess their progress and achievements. Coaching provides a structure for this reflection and encourages the learner to determine the path of subsequent learning. Authentic assessment lies at the intersection of content, real-life applications, and student readiness. Coaching is inherently personalized, so the realizations and consequent plan of action will be tailored to the learner and their needs. Wake et al. (2023) find that authentic assessment may be perceived by undergraduates with some uncertainty because the methods may be outside of their previous experience with traditional pedagogy. They recommend “formative, or lower stakes, authentic assessments,” providing clear examples, and “fostering and encouraging dialogue” (p. 8) to assuage student concerns. Templates for incorporating coaching into formative and summative assessment are provided below.

In conclusion, a coaching practice, with its student-centered approach and emphasis on reflection, has clear parallels with educational theory, particularly modes of experiential and self-directed learning (Bennett & Campone, 2017; Lennard, 2010). Instructors might consider coaching as a method of teaching, learning, and assessing.

Prior Work on Coaching in Higher Education

Though at times additional clarification regarding the practical and ethical bounds of coaching may be necessary, based on the following selection of literature, there are tools and conceptual frameworks for coaching in higher education settings for practitioners to draw upon.

Guccione & Hutchinson (2021) present a hybrid of coaching and mentoring in the context of academic development, calling them “sister disciplines” (p. xvi). They acknowledge that these are distinct modes that the practitioner might intentionally choose or combine for the benefit of the learner. They also state that coaching and mentoring should not be used as therapy by non-therapists in educational settings. They resist demarcated definitions but add, “Coaching: a designed, non-directive learning conversation. Mentoring: A coaching conversation (larger part) plus some experience-based contextualization, advice or guidance (smaller part)” (p. 7). They frame this hybrid coaching-mentoring practice as a partnership with clear agreements and boundaries. Students and scholars likely benefit from both modalities (coaching and mentoring). Nevertheless, as noted above, the aims of client-guided deliberation (coaching) and advising or mentoring are at odds with one another, as mentorship and advising subvert the understanding that a coachee is capable of independently determining the best strategies for their circumstances, an understanding that forms the basis of coaching. To ensure informed consent and psychological safety, or that the participant feels “safe to learn” (McCormick, 2023, p. 58), it is helpful to provide clarity when mode switching.

Huff et al. (2013) present a model for coaching developed for school principals, though the framework might inform or be adapted to coaching undergraduates. The “phases” of their coaching model are “1) Groundwork 2) Assessment and feedback 3) Goal setting 4) Action planning and 5) Ongoing assessment and support” (p. 508). This model, like Guccione & Hutchinson’s, is also a hybrid, combining general rapport and context building (coaching) with providing feedback (mentoring), followed and facilitated by partnership for active goal setting (coaching).

Cruz & Rosemond (2017) highlight the persistent discourse of coaching “leaders” and how coaching has historically been used to support instruction in higher education. While it has most commonly been utilized as a professional development modality for faculty and staff, there are natural opportunities to extend these existing practices to undergraduates.

Dochy et al. (2022) argue that coaching is inextricably linked to the practice of providing and discussing feedback and that the resulting dialogic process is a form of learning. The coaching framework they provide is based on “progress” questions, “content” questions, and “process” questions (2022b, pp. 90–94). They provide sets of open-ended questions to engage the learner in evaluating their approach in these three domains. These questions might be mined or adapted to undergraduate assessment or advising.

In the context of medical education, Valentine & Schuwirth (2023) find that mutuality and perceived fairness are essential at the intersection of coaching and assessment. This might be achieved through “transparency” in assessment processes, as well as “ensuring that coaching focuses genuinely on developing the learner to be the best professional they can be” (p. 214). Transparency is a key element in formative assessments, such as providing clear rubrics in the context of undergraduate education (Brookhart, 2018).

Higher educators may reference this body of existing work for methods and frameworks to inform a nascent coaching practice, while incorporating greater technical and ethical clarity.

Possible Results of Coaching

Beyond the general benefits of reflection inherent in experiential or student-centered learning experiences, many tangible positive results of coaching are possible. Wales (2002) found that coaching benefits include “self-awareness, confidence, communication skills, leadership and management, assertiveness, understanding difference, stress management, [and] work/life balance” (p. 276). Jones et al. (2016) detail “cognitive outcomes,” such as goal and skill attainment, and “affective outcomes, such as the development of self-efficacy and confidence, reduction of stress, increased satisfaction and motivation” (p. 11). Knowles (2021) describes enhanced self-awareness, capacity to problem-solve, and self-esteem, which are manifested in “changes in behaviour, performance, goal achievement, or career development” (p. 69).

Bettinger & Baker (2014) found that integrating coaching into tertiary education advising yields positive results on student retention. Tudor (2018) posits that coaching benefits extend not only to student persistence but also to graduation rates and future career satisfaction. Students in Lancer & Eatough’s (2018) study found that coaching accelerated their learning, giving them “control”, “confidence”, and “focus” (p. 77). After assessing 94 undergraduates over a three-year period, Lefdahl-Davis et al. (2018) also found that coaching can positively affect undergraduate retention likely due to increased satisfaction with major (course of study) choice and overall confidence improvement. Students in their study expressed an appreciation for the clarity and self-awareness regarding goal setting and personal values that they developed as a result of coaching.

Coaching presents the opportunity to enhance student learning not only through the process of self-directed or experiential learning, but can also result in various possible positive outcomes like self-awareness, confidence, and goal attainment.

Practice: Tools and Approaches

To introduce the coaching mode or coaching as a learning activity, instructors might first describe the activity as if giving directions for a particular exercise or assignment aimed at brainstorming or generating feedback. Similar non-coaching structures with this intentionality include Critical Friend Protocol (Costantino, 2010) or scrum meetings; these are procedural conversations designed to elicit input and identify strategies. Coaching may not be as formulaic as these methods but signaling that this is a specific approach with dual roles as coach and coachee is helpful. An initial script might be something akin to the following:

Instructor: I’d like to do an exercise with you to help you [brainstorm, problem-solve, define goals, reflect on progress….]. I will ask you a series of questions and let you think out loud, but I will not give you advice. At the end, you might have some new to-dos or strategies. This is called “coaching”. Would you like to try this with me?

It may be beneficial to schedule these coaching touch points ahead for a specific amount of time, and allow the student to prepare, for example:

Instructor: For our next advising appointment, I’d like to offer 30 minutes of coaching. For this to work best, could you reflect on a specific topic you’d like to address? This might be a current challenge you’re facing, or something important to you that would support your success as a student. What do you think?

The instructor explains the purpose and practice of coaching, while also requesting consent from the student. Coaching is presented as an opt-in tactical roleplay meant to enhance learning. Presenting coaching as a timed, intentional activity with parameters and expectations helps differentiate coaching from other instructional modes.

During the coaching mode, listen attentively to the student, asking open-ended questions and pausing to emphasize that the reflective space belongs to the student. Below, I provide some structural guidelines for how a coaching session might take shape.

Coaching Session Structure

As noted, this sample session follows a three-part Pre-In-Post structure: the Pre piece sets the tone for the session; the In piece is the main discussion and deliberation of the coaching session; and the Post piece summarizes the discussion and prompts the student to identify concrete next steps.

The Pre Phase

The first part of a coach-coachee interaction should be a preamble, which sets the stage and readies the participant for a fully informed experience. This consists of assurances of confidentiality, confirming consent, and clearly defining coaching. First, to the degree that is feasible in your role, assure the student that this is a private, confidential conversation and that the contents of the exchange will not be shared externally. Then, ask for confirmed consent to proceed. Finally, explain what coaching is (sample language: a facilitated conversation to discuss goals; thought-partnership; a brainstorm about progress) as well as what it is not (therapy or consulting). To close this first piece, ask the student what questions they might have about the process. This represents a first session’s Pre phase. Once confidentiality, consent, and the nature of coaching have been established, it may not be necessary to repeat in subsequent sessions. Instead, in subsequent sessions, the coach may use open-ended questions to ask about progress related to goals or action items discussed in the previous conversation. For longer coaching engagements, it may be appropriate to create an agreement; for more on this, please consult ICF’s Core Competencies, “Establishes and Maintains Agreements” (n.d.-b).

The In Phase

The next step is agenda-setting. This is often achieved through a series of open-ended questions that bring a broad topic into a narrower focus, and ideally towards an intended result or outcome from the conversation. For example, a student might express a need to discuss time management, then narrow this focus to studying for an exam next week, and then identify that they want to develop a study strategy or schedule. In the model developed by Huff et al. (2013), they might call this “Groundwork”, which they describe as the phase of initial rapport-building coupled with asking questions to better understand the context and nature of the problem. However, there is a potential pitfall to be avoided in this conceptualization. The goal of agenda-setting is not to inform or orient the coach to a situation through informational questions but rather to help the coachee home in on their topic through exploratory questions. Informational questions give the coach context, whereas exploratory questions propel the coachee’s thinking forward. The student is in the “driver’s seat” (Wong, 2021, p. 93) and the coach is asking questions to help them identify the path, not gather information about the route.

Once the agenda and (flexible) objective of the session have been articulated by the coachee, the coach practices a technique like that of Motivational Interviewing (Rosengren, 2017). This is a method of open-ended exploratory questions, affirmations, summary reflections, and internal summaries, or what Rosengren (2017) calls OARS. Simply put, avoid “yes/no” questions. Questions that are open and prompt the consideration of new ideas, perspectives, or possibilities will be more powerful than closed questions that simply ask about existing information. If you observe the student questioning their capacity or achievements, you might offer an observation of past accomplishments. Any general and authentic affirmation of the students’ personhood or talents is helpful. Reflecting student language is a key element of coaching that demonstrates to the student that you are listening attentively, making the student feel heard. The act of mirroring ideas creates continuity in thinking and can promote reflection. Joseph (2023) includes reflective listening in his description of a person-centered approach to coaching:

. . . respecting the self-determination of the client is that active reflective listening is central to what the coach does. . . . Reflective listening, when skillfully done and in the context of an empathic, congruent, positively regarding and unconditional relationship, encourages the client to verbalize further, to explore issues in more depth, to be challenged, to reach new insights and, ultimately, to be more equipped to make new choices in life. (p. 72)

In the process of reflective listening, the teacher/coach paraphrases or repeats elements of what the coachee/student says to support further ideation. The student continues their train of thought, building upon their expression of ideas. The coach practices restraint, allowing the coachee to think out loud uninterrupted. The coach may also offer reflective summaries to prompt elaboration or introduce a question. These summaries provide signposts to the conversation, as well as additional opportunities for realization. During this cogitation phase, it is important to avoid your inner “advice monster” (Stanier, 2020)—abstaining from non-reflective commentary until the “coach hat” is off. This is particularly difficult for instructors, who often have the urge to offer guidance and input. We want to contribute our two cents—our knowledge, our experiences—if we think we can assist whomever we are speaking with. However, this is antithetical to a coaching mindset, which places the onus for problem solving on the client. Offering advice may interrupt the student’s thought process, inhibiting autonomy and eroding accountability. Educators should reserve commentary and resist advising during the coaching engagement, centering the student’s ability to think deeply and critically for themselves. If a role shift is needed, clearly signal the shift. Likewise, provide a clear indication when you resume coaching, so as not to confuse the student about what is expected from this exchange. For example:

Instructor: I’d like to pause for a second and offer a different perspective. . . . What do you think about that? . . . Ok, let’s get back to it.

Instructor: ‘Prof hat’ on for a second, I’m noticing you said [quote/summary], my observation is [xyz]. ‘Coach hat’ now: To what degree do you agree?/How does that inform . . . ?

Instructor: I’m hearing [xyz], and I’m wondering how accurate my understanding/interpretation is.

Instructor: I’d just like to offer something from my [view, experience . . . ] for a moment. . . . How does this contribute to this strategy you’re formulating?

When you offer your interpretation, insight, or input, be sure to hand the topic of conversation clearly back to the student. In the above scripts, the instructor offers their observation or clarification, but then recruits the student’s participation in evaluating and integrating the ideas. Psychological safety is built upon mutual understanding and knowing one’s contributions will be valued (Qian et al., 2020).

The Post Phase

As the conversation narrows towards the coachee-stated end, the coach poses questions to move towards a client/coachee/student-determined course of action. This might be a list of concrete tasks or an articulation of goals in the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) format. If time allows, invite reflection on the session itself. Sample questions might include, “What insights are you [the student] leaving the session with today? What are you learning from this conversation?”

Table 1: Basic Coaching Session Structure

This typical session can be completed in thirty minutes during office hours or advising appointments. This may be a challenge for some practitioners to implement due to time constraints. However, with the many potential benefits of coaching, it is a worthwhile investment in energy and resources. With practice and mastery, coaching requires little preparation, in contrast to crafting lectures and lessons, which is often time intensive.

Templates

The principles and structure above can be generally applied in the following templates. In the next section, I provide templates for goal setting, problem solving, formative assessment, and summative assessment.

Goal Setting

Goal setting is a key aspect of coaching (Clutterbuck & Spence, 2016). The basic coaching session structure above is suitable for supporting the articulation of goals. Additionally, there are more tailored tools the practitioner may consider. As previously mentioned, self-directed learning plans or learner contracts (Frank & Scharff, 2013; M. S. Knowles, 1991) provide a system of specificity and accountability to support students in articulating the path of their own learning. The learner contract prompts the student to set goals and design a plan based on self-directed learning. It also encourages the student to identify mechanisms for sharing knowledge and skills with others, modes of self-accountability, and metacognitive strategies.

Additional goal-setting frameworks (see the table below) include the GROW model, the WOOP model, and the aforementioned SMART acronym. The GROW Model (David & Clutterbuck, 2013; Grant, 2011; Whitmore, 2009), which stands for Goal, Reality, Options, Way, is a sequence that prompts the coachee to articulate potential variables that could affect success, possibly identifying and circumnavigating barriers as part of the goal-setting process. A similar model is the WOOP model (Oettingen, 2015), which stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. In this model, the participant visualizes a future or ideal scenario with its associated positive outcome(s). Then, they anticipate possible challenges to success. Finally, they articulate a plan of action. SMART is another popular framework used in both business and coaching (David & Clutterbuck, 2013). There are a variety of acronym iterations. David and Clutterbuck (2013) cite “Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound” (p. 23). I find “attainable” and “realistic” too closely related, and so instead opt for Relevant so as to probe the client’s internal priorities. This is related to time management and calibrating values with existing contexts to new goals.

An additional facet of goal setting, taken from habit-formation, is planning rewards and celebration (Clear, 2018; Duhigg, 2014). Part of this is recognition on the part of the coach, acknowledging the coachee’s progress and attainment. It is also related to motivation and persistence, celebrating progress with rewards to encourage continuation. Borrowing again from OARS (Rosengren, 2017), the coach may offer reflective responses and affirmations acknowledging the coachee’s work. Then, the teacher/coach prompts the student with an open-ended question about how they might go about celebrating their progress.

The reader may be sensing some repeating themes in these goal-setting strategies. These frameworks generally aim to assess the feasibility and meaningfulness of a given goal. They evaluate possible challenges and connect the plan to the individual’s priorities and values. They prompt the client to articulate a concrete path to fruition.

Problem Solving

Problem solving follows a trajectory similar to goal setting, asking the coachee to brainstorm possibilities and consider paths of opposition, eventually building creative strategies to address them. As with all coaching sessions, this would ideally stem from a student-set agenda or be based on comments the student has made about a problem, dilemma, or challenge they face. The instructor or advisor could also share an observation based on student performance or verbal feedback and ask the student if they would like to strategize ways to address this issue. (I provide more detail on mixing feedback and coaching in the subsequent assessment section.) Below is a template for how a problem-based session could unfold.

This one-on-one coaching could be used as scaffolding for the type of peer reflection that Mason & Singh (2010) describe or as a primer to a problem-based learning model like the one R. L. Jones & Turner (2006) implement. Once students have undergone a systematic process of out-loud analysis individually, they may be more comfortable engaging the process in a group setting, although Snyder & Snyder (2008) suggest peer coaching in problem solving, particularly for students new to active learning. A cognitive style of developmental coaching (Bachkirova, 2023), in this case centered on problem solving, encourages students to develop higher-order critical thinking skills. Song et al. (2022) report that “case method coaching for problem-based learning” (p. 418) enhances learner performance but they also recommend it be supported by one-on-one coaching. Practitioners might design problem-based instruction in stages, similar to the gradual release of responsibility model (Fisher & Frey, 2013), starting with one-on-one coaching and moving to peer coaching, in order to support eventual independent small group work. In this manner, students experience and practice the modality of coaching before moving to engage in it autonomously. To introduce peer coaching, instructors may provide scaffolded instruction such as:

Instructor: For our next class, we are going to try a peer-coaching activity. This is a specific type of listening and problem strategizing exercise where you take turns, asking your partner questions to help them brainstorm new possibilities. I will send you some examples over email [scripts, videos] and your homework this week is to 1) identify a [wicked problem, design challenge, problem set, recurrent issue with your writing . . . ] and 2) familiarize yourself with how peer coaching works.

Formative Assessment

Formative assessment is a key element of student-centered, inclusive pedagogy (Dewsbury et al., 2022; Hockings, 2010; Sanger, 2020). This is a form of feedback or evaluation that provides the student with clear and actionable information on their progress. They might alter or sustain their study habits as a result. Formative assessment is a barometer for both the teacher and student, gauging how well teaching and learning are progressing. Examples of formative assessment are generally low-stakes deliverables, such as exit tickets, quizzes, or homework, that provide clarity on how well students are grasping material or meeting course objectives. They can also be non-final, incremental assignments that build towards cumulative tasks or competencies.

Dochy et al. (2022, Chapter 14) present a model of coaching based on “progress, content and process” by providing feedback in dialogue to “[tap] into the power of the learner’s strengths, teaching the learner to become autonomous and self-directing” (p. 90). In the context of coaching for formative and summative assessment, I propose a hybrid of instructor observations and feedback, paired with a coaching conversation that is centered on the student’s progress, grasp of course content, and learner processes such as study skills, goal setting, or time management. Dochy et al. (2022, Chapter 14) argue:

Specifically, in order to stimulate deep learning, the feedback that has been cognitively and affectively processed by the learner is part of an action plan that the learner creates. This action plan stimulates and facilitates that the feedback is concretely put to work. (p. 93)

When making an observation, hand it back to the student for consideration and response. For example, “I’ve noticed you haven’t participated in the online discussion board. Have you also noticed this?” Then, explore, “Why do you think that is? What is preventing you from participating?” The template below moves from providing feedback, to eliciting student reaction, to integrating the feedback meaningfully into the student’s life circumstances or learning strategies.

As with all coaching, but particularly in the context of feedback, the coach needs to establish trust and psychological safety (Dochy et al., 2022; Wake et al., 2023) for the input to be received. This is not a punitive conversation, but rather a strategic exploration designed to support student success and flourishing.

Another application of coaching for formative assessment might take the form of a midterm check-in. The conversation is designed to acknowledge student progress and encourage self-evaluation. This is largely a metacognitive reflection, with the opportunity to share feedback.

Finally, formative assessment coaching may be useful in the context of self-evaluation, before receiving grades or feedback. Students might also follow prompts to engage in peer coaching and thereby support each other to reflect and self-assess. As described in the problem-solving approach above, it may be helpful to follow a scaffolded progression from one-on-one coaching to peer coaching.

Summative Assessment

Summative assessment, in contrast to formative assessment, is the cumulative evaluation at the end of a unit or course that assesses student mastery. Summative assessment may prompt students to demonstrate complex disciplinary skills or apply and synthesize knowledge. A summative coaching conversation could be similar to the above midterm formative coaching conversation, beginning with sharing the purpose and plan of the conversation (Wake et al., 2023). Throughout the exchange, the teacher/coach may offer observations that are handed back to the student for reflection.

For self-evaluation, prompt the student to consider their performance in light of course content, learning objectives, and evaluation criteria. This might be before providing evaluation or in the context of sharing feedback. As with problem solving or formative assessment, this may lay the groundwork for peer coaching.

To review, when coaching in the context of feedback or assessment, it is important to establish rapport; delineate the purpose and plan for the conversation; and provide feedback based on clear evaluation criteria and respectful observations that are offered back to the student for reflection. The subsequent phases of the conversation, as with many coaching conversations, narrow towards concrete strategies based on the student’s learning needs and goals. With proper scaffolding and instruction, students may engage in peer coaching to self-evaluate their own performance and progress.

Appreciative Education

Appreciative Education, a framework which faculty may already be familiar with, shares many principles with client-centered co-active coaching. This understanding may inform a new coaching practice or support an existing one. Bloom et al. (2013) describe Appreciative Education as focused on the student’s strengths, goals, and potential with a theoretical emphasis on co-constructed knowledge based on lived experience. A posture of care and good faith in students’ capacity to succeed underpins this approach just as it underpins coaching. Both are collaborative, reflective processes designed to support student success. Elements of Appreciative Education’s “six phases” (Bloom et al., 2013, p. 8) mirror coaching practices. In the table below, I compare these six phases to a coaching practice.

Coaching shares a great deal, both philosophically and practically, with the six phases proposed by Appreciative Education (Bloom et al., 2013). Current practitioners in higher education might invest in the tools of coaching to augment their approaches. Coaching could be offered in the context of office hours, advising, and peer learning exercises.

Guidance Summary and Encouragement

According to Bloom et al. (2013), “At their best, teaching and learning is a shared responsibility between the instructor and the student. This necessitates embedding reflective questions within conversations between professionals and students” (p. 10). Coaching offers instructors a way of intentionally cultivating that reflective conversation with specific tools and concrete methodology. To adopt this method, faculty might begin with definitional and ethical clarity about coaching practices. Coaching should not be confused with therapy, mentoring, advising, or consulting. Practitioners who adopt coaching into their instructional tool belt should be cognizant of power imbalances, obtain consent, and maintain a supportive environment. It may be helpful to introduce students to the modality by describing it as a specific type of activity that involves lots of questions and thinking out loud. Instructors might also share the purpose and possible outcomes of coaching, for example:

Instructor: The objective of this activity is to help you think more clearly about the strategies you intend to use this semester. Coaching can sometimes help people find new or more appropriate strategies for their particular situation.

If you are new to coaching or this type of facilitated reflection, be transparent and vulnerable with your students. You are both learners finding your way. It is perfectly reasonable to preface your time with your student with this reality. This transparency may contribute to the success of the interaction. Stepping into the role of “coach” rather than “expert” may be challenging, but it is formative in rewarding ways. You may learn more about yourself as well as your students. The simple act of listening with the radical intention to support is powerful and will likely open new avenues to both you and your students. If you are still apprehensive with coaching your students, it may be helpful to try peer coaching with another faculty member to acclimate to the process. The potential benefits of coaching are worth any initial discomfort.

Conclusion

Coaching is a flexible modality that is theoretically in alignment with many educational approaches such as self-directed learning and authentic assessment. Clarity regarding the purpose and practice of coaching, alongside careful consideration of ethical boundaries, is an important aspect of integrating coaching into an educator’s toolbox. Coaching is suitable for supporting students with goal setting, problem solving, and reflective self-assessment. Clear examples of coaching templates and approaches may assist educational practitioners, such as those teaching or advising undergraduates, in utilizing and adapting these methods.

References

Bachkirova, T. (2023). Psychological development in adulthood and coaching. In T. Bachkirova, E. Cox, & D. A. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (4th ed., pp. 132–144). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bennett, J. L., & Campone, F. (2017). Coaching and theories of learning. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching (pp. 102–120). Sage Publications, Inc.

Bettinger, E. P., & Baker, R. B. (2014). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student advising. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713500523

Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., He, Y., & Konkle, E. (2013). Appreciative education. New Directions for Student Services, 2013(143), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20055

Brennan, D., Wildflower, L., & Iordanou, I. (2023). Ethics and coaching. In T. Bachkirova, E. Cox, & D. A. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (4th ed., pp. 496–509). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3(22). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022

Carmel, R. G., & Paul, M. W. (2015). Mentoring and coaching in academia: Reflections on a mentoring/coaching relationship. Policy Futures in Education, 13(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315578562

Caspi, J. (2005). Coaching and social work: Challenges and concerns. Social Work, 50(4), 359–362.

Cheesebrough, K. R., Bronzert, J., & Frazier-De La Torre, E. (2020). Leadership, academia, and the role of career coaching. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 10(4), 870–872. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaa057

Clear, J. (2018). Atomic habits: An easy and proven way to build good habits and break bad ones. Avery.

Clutterbuck, D. A., & Spence, G. (2017). Working with goals in coaching. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching (pp. 218–237). Sage Publications, Inc.

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2015). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-directed leaders and learners. Rowman & Littlefield.

Cox, E. (2012). Coaching understood: A pragmatic inquiry into the coaching process (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (2014). Theoretical traditions and coaching genres: Mapping the territory. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422313520194

Cruz, L., & Rosemond, L. (2017). Coaching academia: The integration of coaching, educational development, and the culture of higher education. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28, 83–108.

David, S. A., & Clutterbuck, D. (2013). Goals in coaching and mentoring: The current state of play. In S. A. David, D. Clutterbuck, & D. Megginson (Eds.), Beyond goals: Effective strategies for coaching and mentoring. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315569208

Dewsbury, B. M., Swanson, H. J., Moseman-Valtierra, S., & Caulkins, J. (2022). Inclusive and active pedagogies reduce academic outcome gaps and improve long-term performance. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0268620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268620

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Arikan, S. (2022). Dialogic feedback for high impact learning: Key to PCP-coaching and assessment-as-learning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781003294139

Duhigg, C. (2014). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Frank, T., & Scharff, L. L. F. (2013). Learning contracts in undergraduate courses: Impacts on student behaviors and academic performance. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(4), 36–53.

Grant, A. (2011). Is it time to REGROW the GROW model? Issues related to teaching coaching session structures. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), 118–126.

Guccione, K., & Hutchinson, S. (2021). Coaching and mentoring for academic development. Emerald Publishing.

Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A synthesis of research (p. 67). EvidenceNet. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/2/2735/Inclusive_teaching_and_learning_in_HEsynthesis_.pdf

Huff, J., Preston, C., & Goldring, E. (2013). Implementation of a coaching program for school principals: Evaluating coaches’ strategies and the results. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213485467

Hussey, L., & Campbell-Meier, J. (2021). Are you mentoring or coaching? Definitions matter. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(3), 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620966651

ICF. (2019, October). Updated ICF core competencies. International Coaching Federation. https://coachingfederation.org/app/uploads/2021/07/Updated-ICF-Core-Competencies_English_Brand-Updated.pdf

ICF. (n.d.-a). ICF, the gold standard in coaching | Read about ICF. International Coaching Federation. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://coachingfederation.org/about

ICF. (n.d.-b). The gold standard in coaching | ICF – core competencies. International Coaching Federation. Retrieved April 22, 2024, from https://coachingfederation.org/credentials-and-standards/core-competencies

ICF Global Board of Directors. (2019, September). ICF code of ethics. ICF Code of Ethics. https://coachingfederation.org/ethics/code-of-ethics

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta‐analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119

Jones, R. L., & Turner, P. (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: Can problem-based learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980600708429

Joseph, S. (2023). The person-centred approach to coaching. In T. Bachkirova, E. Cox, & D. A. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (4th ed., pp. 69–80). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kimsey-House, K., Kimsey-House, H., Sandhal, P., & Whitworth, L. (2018). Co-active coaching, fourth edition: The proven framework for transformative conversations at work and in life (4th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.

Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Gulf Pub Co.

Knowles, M. S. (1991). Using learning contracts: Practical approaches to individualizing and structuring learning (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, S. (2021). Benefits of coaching. In S. Knowles (Ed.), Positive psychology coaching (pp. 67–77). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88995-1_5

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall.

Lancer, N., & Eatough, V. (2018). One-to-one coaching as a catalyst for personal development: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of coaching undergraduates at a UK university. International Coaching Psychology Review, 13(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2018.13.1.72

Lefdahl-Davis, E. M., Huffman, L., Stancil, J., & Alayan, A. (2018). The impact of life coaching on undergraduate students: A multiyear analysis of coaching outcomes. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 16(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.24384/000560

Lennard, D. (2010). Chapter 2 theoretical foundation: Learning theory for coaches. In Coaching models: A cultural perspective: A guide to model development: For practitioners and students of coaching (1st ed., pp. 17–39). Routledge.

Mason, A., & Singh, C. (2010). Helping students learn effective problem solving strategies by reflecting with peers. American Journal of Physics, 78(7), 748–754. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3319652

McCormick, I. (2023). Psychological connection, safety and confidentiality. In Reflective practice for coaches. Routledge.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

NEA. (n.d.). Code of ethics for educators | NEA. Retrieved March 11, 2024, from https://www.nea.org/resource-library/code-ethics-educators

Oettingen, G. (2015). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation (Reprint ed.). Current.

Qian, J., Zhang, W., Qu, Y., Wang, B., & Chen, M. (2020). The enactment of knowledge sharing: The roles of psychological availability and team psychological safety climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 551366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.551366

Rogers, C. (2004). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy (Rev. ed.). Constable.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Constable.

Roša, A., & Lace, N. (2021). Assessment of the impact of coaching on a company’s performance: A review of methods. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040233

Rosengren, D. B. (2017). Building motivational interviewing skills, second edition: A practitioner workbook (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Sanger, C. S. (2020). Inclusive pedagogy and universal design approaches for diverse learning environments. In C. S. Sanger & N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and inclusion in global higher education: Lessons from across Asia (pp. 31–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1628-3_2

Santiesteban, L., Young, E., Tiarks, G. C., Boemi, M. G., Patel, R. K., Bauckman, K. A., Fine, L., Padilla, M. E., & Rajput, V. (2022). Defining advising, coaching, and mentoring for student development in medical education. Cureus, 14(7), e27356. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.27356

Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). Basic Books.

Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 90–99.

Song, B. L., Lee, K. L., Liew, C. Y., Ho, R. C., & Lin, W. L. (2022). Business students’ perspectives on case method coaching for problem-based learning: Impacts on student engagement and learning performance in higher education. Education + Training, 64(3), 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2021-0106

Stanier, M. B. (2020). The advice trap: Be humble, stay curious & change the way you lead forever. Page Two.

Tudor, T. R. (2018). Fully integrating academic advising with career coaching to increase student retention, graduation rates and future job satisfaction: An industry approach. Industry and Higher Education, 32(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218759928

Valentine, N., & Schuwirth, L. (2023). Using fairness to reconcile tensions between coaching and assessment. Medical Education, 57(3), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14968

Wake, S., Pownall, M., Harris, R., & Birtill, P. (2023). Balancing pedagogical innovation with psychological safety?: Student perceptions of authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2275519

Wales, S. (2002). Why coaching? Journal of Change Management, 3(3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042542

Wasylyshyn, K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 55(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.55.2.94

Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance: A practical guide to growing your own skills. Nicholas Brealey.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance: GROWing human potential and purpose (4th ed.). Brealey.

Wong, K. M. (2021). “A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it” by Lee and Hannafin (2016): An international perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09842-w