ERIC ED581449: Motivational Interviewing as a Framework to Guide School-Based Coaching

2014·0.16 MB·English

by  ERIC

This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville], [. Andy Frey]
On: 26 August 2014, At: 09:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Advances in School Mental Health
Promotion
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasm20
Motivational interviewing as a
framework to guide school-based
coaching
Jon Leea, Andy J. Freyb, Keith Hermanc & Wendy Reinkec
a School of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH,
USA
b Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville,
KY, USA
c Department of Educational, School, & Counseling Psychology,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Published online: 22 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Jon Lee, Andy J. Frey, Keith Herman & Wendy Reinke (2014) Motivational
interviewing as a framework to guide school-based coaching, Advances in School Mental Health
Promotion, 7:4, 225-239, DOI: 10.1080/1754730X.2014.949515
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2014.949515
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
4
1
0
2
st
u
g
u
A
6
2
5
2
9:
0
at
]
y
e
r
F
y
d
n
A
[.
],
e
vill
s
ui
o
L
f
o
y
sit
r
e
v
ni
U
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
AdvancesinSchoolMentalHealthPromotion,2014
Vol.7,No.4,225–239,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2014.949515
Motivational interviewing as a framework to guide
school-based coaching
Jon Leea*, Andy J. Freyb, KeithHermanc andWendy Reinkec
aSchoolofEducation,UniversityofCincinnati,Cincinnati,OH,USA;bKentSchoolofSocialWork,
UniversityofLouisville,Louisville,KY,USA;cDepartmentofEducational,School,&Counseling
Psychology,UniversityofMissouri,Columbia,MO,USA
4
1 (Received26March2014;accepted2July2014)
0
2
ust Inschool-basedsettings,coachingisdescribedasaprofessionaldevelopmentpractice
ug inwhichapersonwithspecializedknowledgeworkswithateachertochangecurrent
A practicestobetterstudentoutcomes.Coachinghasemergedasastrategytosupportthe
26 successfuldeploymentofevidence-basedinterventions.Still,littleisknownaboutthe
5 coachingprocessitself,andtheliteraturedoesnotyetclearlydefinetheactivitiesand
2
9: skillsthatcomprisethecoachingprocess.Inthisarticle,weexploretheoreticalsupport
] at 0 ifnotremrvoietiwviantigo:nHaleilnptienrgvipeewoipnlge(cMhaI)n[gMe.ilNleerw,WY.oRrk.,,&NYRo:lGlnuicilkfo,rSd.(P2r0e1ss2]).aMsoatibveahtaiovnioarl
y change theory to guide coaching practice and research. In addition, we propose
e
Fr activities to conceptualize the coaching process, identify skills that are likely to
y contributetosuccessfulcoaching,highlightspecificinterventionsormodelsthathave
d
n used an MI approach to increase implementation fidelity within the context of a
A
[. coachingrelationship,anddiscussimplicationsforfutureresearchandpractice.
e], Keywords: school-based coaching; motivational interviewing; teachers; behavior
vill change;implementationfidelity
s
ui
o
L
of Implementationfidelity,ortheextenttowhichapracticeorinterventionisimplementedas
y
sit intended, is increasingly recognized as a major factor underlying intervention failure, as
er defined by less than expected intervention outcomes. Although all service delivery
v
ni systemshaveproblems,itisespeciallywelldocumentedthatthedifficultiesteachershave
U
in learning, using and sustaining new skills contribute to low implementation fidelity in
[
y
b educational settings (Becker & Domitrovich, 2011; Domitrovich, Gest, Jones, Gill, &
ed DeRousie, 2010; Hemmeter, Snyder, Kinder, & Artman, 2011; Mesa, Lewis-Palmer, &
d
a Reinke,2005; Riley-Tillman &Eckert,2001).
o
nl A number of experts in the field of education have acknowledged the importance of
w
o being able to influence teacher behavior, particularly within the context of successful
D
interventiondeployment.Forexample,HagermoserSanettiandKratochwill(2008)state:
‘without question, there is a gap between the methodological importance of ensuring
treatment integrity and the available empirical support for intervention strategies to
promote treatment integrity’ (p. 451). The importance of implementing interventions as
intended has increased pressure for instructional support providers (e.g., school social
workers,schoolpsychologists,schoolcounselors,behaviorspecialists,resourceteachers,
and so forth) to attend systematically to treatment integrity issues and outcomes. The
National Association of School Psychologists (2005) promotes attention to treatment
*Correspondingauthor.Email:[email protected],[email protected]
q2014TheCliffordBeersFoundation
226 J.Lee et al.
integrityinapublishedpositionstatement,andtheNationalAssociationofSchoolSocial
Workers (2011) includesit intheir nationalstandards.
Coachinghasemergedasastrategytosupportthesuccessfuldeploymentofevidence-
based interventions (Driscoll, Wang, Mashburn, & Pianta, 2011; Noell, Duhon, Gatti, &
Connell, 2002; Pas, Bradshaw, & Cash, 2014). Denton and Hasbrouck (2009) describe
coaching as a professional development practice in which a person with specialized
knowledgeworkswithateachertochangecurrentpractices.Driscolletal.(2011)found
thatteacherswere13timesmorelikelytoimplementaninterventionwhentheyhadaccess
toacoach.Severalotherstudieshavefoundthataccesstosupportsuchasacoachresultedin
greaterself-efficacyandbetterimplementation(Forman,Olin,Hoagwood,Crowe,&Saka,
2009; Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small, & Jacobson, 2009; Wenz-Gross &
4
1 Upshur,2012).Afterconductingasystematicreviewofthecoachingliterature,Stormont,
0
st 2 Reinke,Newcomer,Darney,andLewis(inpress)concludedthat83%ofinterventionsthat
u usedacoachasacomponentoftheinterventionhadpositiveresults.Theynote,however,
g
Au thatmoststudiesinvolvingcoachesemployedskilledprofessionalsfromoutsidetheschool.
6 Despite the promise of coaching as a professional development strategy, relatively
2
5 little is known about the process. Reinke, Stormont, Herman, and Newcomer (2014)
2
9: recentlyexaminedspecificelementsofcoachinginastudywith52teachersimplementing
0
at a classroom level intervention. They looked at the relationship between increases in
] interventionimplementationand(1)providingperformancefeedback,(2)actionplanning,
y
e
r (3) modeling, (4) reviewing, (5) role-playing, and (6) goal setting. Two-way repeated
F
y measuresanalyses(ANCOVA)usingfourtimepointsacrosstheschoolyeardemonstrated
d
n significant associations between amount of time coaching and improvements in
A
[. implementation fidelity (Wilk’s l¼.86, F(2,47)¼3.90, p,.05, h2¼.14), yet
], providing performance feedback was the only activity associated with this desirable
e
vill outcome (Wilk’s l¼.86, F(2,47)¼3.81, p,.05, h2¼.14). The authors recommend
uis the results be interpreted cautiously because the study was based on the activities of a
Lo single coach and some activities (e.g., modeling) occurred too infrequently to analyze.
of However, the results are consistent with Hagermoser Sanetti and Kratochwill’s (2008)
sity conclusionthatperformancefeedbackistheonlystrategytopromotetreatmentintegrity
r with a systematic line ofresearch.
e
v
ni Anotherstrategywithevidenceofeffectivenessistheuseofmotivationalinterviewing
U
(MI),althoughthisisfoundmostlyoutsidethecontextofschool-basedcoaching.Originally
[
by developedinthecontextofalcoholandhealth-caretreatment,MIhasbeeneffectivelyand
d strategically applied in a wide range of settings including where treatment fidelity is
e
d
a important.RecentliteraturehasextendedtheapplicationofMItoteacher-coachingcontexts
o
nl (Frey,Lee,etal.,2013a;Leeetal.,2014;Reinke,Herman,&Sprick,2011).
w
o Inthisarticle,we(1)exploretheoreticalsupportforMIasabehaviorchangetheoryto
D
guidecoachingpracticeandresearch,(2)proposeactivitiestoconceptualizethecoaching
process, (3) identify MI skills that are likely important for successful coaching, (4)
highlight specific interventions or models that have used MI to increase implementation
fidelity within the context of a coaching relationship, and (5) discuss implications for
researchand practice.
Theoreticalsupport
Overthepastthreedecades,researchrelatedtoMIhasprovidedinsightintotheunderlying
mechanisms affecting behavior change. Miller and Rose (2009) suggest that this
cumulative body of research indicates two likely active ingredients to behavior change
Advances inSchool Mental Health Promotion 227
from the perspective of MI: (1) a relational component in which the development of a
workingallianceisacentralconstruct,and(2)atechnicalcomponent,whichinvolvesthe
differential application of MI skills across four processes. Miller and Rollnick (2012)
describeMIasasetofoverlappingandrecursiveprocessesthatincludeaworkingalliance
(engaging), a particular agenda (focusing), eliciting language in support of change
(evoking), and discussions about what and how to go about making desired changes
(planning). Each process identifies client utterances and appropriate responses to them.
We begin with the relational component and the building of a working alliance with the
client (hereafterreferred toasthe teacher).
14 Relationalcomponent
0
st 2 ThefirstactiveingredientinthepracticeofMI,therelationalcomponent,isa‘spirit.’The
u practitioner develops a working alliance and a coaching environment that allows for the
g
Au interrelated application of four essential elements to that spirit: partnership, acceptance,
6 compassion, and evocation (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). By being in partnership with a
2
5 teacher, for example, a skilled MI coach avoids the role of an expert and joins in the
2
9: processofchangefromtheperspectiveofateacher.Thecoachrefrainsfromfixingwhatis
0
at brokeninfavoroflearningwhatisimportantinthisprocesstotheteacherandrecognizing
] theteacher’sautonomyintheprocess.Teachersmightexperiencethespiritofpartnership
y
e
r in the realization that they are not being cajoled into change, but are being supported as
F
y they explore their personal motivations for change.
d
n Coaches demonstrate acceptance through an unconditional positive regard (Rogers,
A
[. 1980)andabelief intheother’spotential forchange.Thecoachaffirmsthestrengthsof
], the teacher, empathizes with accuracy (avoiding sympathy or pity), and provides for the
e
vill teacher’sautonomy andself-direction. Empathy has been widely studied within MI.
uis Acoachwhopursuesthewelfareofateacher,placingtheneedsoftheteacherbefore
Lo his or her own, is said to be compassionate. Compassion within MI does not equate to
of sympathyoranyotheremotionexperience,butrevealsitselfinthecoach’scommitment
sity and promotion ofthe self-identifiedinterests ofthe teacher.
r Evocation is the guiding principle that the teacher rather than the coach should be
e
v
ni voicing the arguments for change. This principle was informed by Festinger’s (1957)
U
formulation of cognitive dissonance and Bem’s (1967) theory of self-perception. Thus,
[
by what the interviewee has within guides the pursuit of change; the task of the coach is to
d evoke the particulars froma strength-based perspective.
e
d
a
o
nl
w Technical component
o
D
ThesecondactiveingredienttobehaviorchangewithinaMIstance,asproposedbyMiller
andRose(2009),thetechnicalcomponent,istheuseofMI-consistentinterviewingskills
for the purpose of recognizing and evoking ‘change talk.’ Prior to proceeding to the
activities and skills that comprise our proposed framework for guiding school-based
coaching, abrief review of twokeyMI concepts: change talk andsustain talk.
Change and sustain talk
‘Change talk’ is verbalization that reveals the person’s own motivation to change, and
‘sustain talk’ is verbalization that supports the status quo. The only reliable and valid
mechanismforevaluatingMIproficiency – thatis,applicationofMIskillsacrossthefour
228 J.Lee et al.
processes in authentic practice settings – is by directly coding practice samples. In this
way,Apodaca andLongabaugh(2009)have establishedthatMI isdistinctfromplacebo
control conditions, treatment-as-usual conditions, and other active treatment conditions
with regard to both MI-consistent and -inconsistent therapist responses. MI-consistent
methodsconstitutethetechnicalaspectofMIpractice.Evidenceisbeginningtoemergein
substance-abuseandmental-healthsettingstosupportthehypothesisthatproficientuseof
MI increasesclients’in-sessionchange talk while decreasing sustain talk.
In a classic study demonstrating the impact of therapist behavior on parent
noncomplianceinthefieldofmentalhealth,PattersonandForgatch(1985)demonstrated
that a therapist’s efforts to change parent behavior through teaching and confronting
elicitedimmediateparentnoncompliance,whereaseffortstosupportparentsdecreasedthe
4
1 likelihood of noncompliance. These authors argued that social learning interventions
0
st 2 requiretwodifferentsetsofskills – oneforimplementingeffectivepracticesandtheother
u for managing noncompliance. Responsiveness of change talk to therapist style has been
g
Au replicated repeatedly in substance-abuse literature. For example, Moyers and Martin
6 (2006)and Moyers, Martin, Christopher, et al. (2007) found that MI-consistent therapist
2
5 behavior was followed byclient change talk.
2
9: Researchers havefoundthatincreased changetalkanddecreasedsustaintalkpredict
0
at behavior change. Initial sequential analyses by Miller, Benefield, and Tonigan (1993)
] identifiedanegativecorrelationbetweensustaintalkandfavorabledrinkingoutcomes,but
y
e
r norelationship betweenchange talkand outcomes.However,when thesametapes were
F
y analyzed by Paul Amrhein, a psycholinguist, he differentiated change talk into the
d
n subcategoriesofdesire(‘Iwant...’),ability(‘Ican...’),reasons(‘IfIchange,then...’),
A
[. andneed(‘Ihavetochange,or...’),whichallpredictedcommitmenttochange.Healso
], foundstrengthofcommitmentlanguage(i.e.,talkthatinvolvesthemobilizationofchange
e
vill e.g.,‘IplantopraisethischildwhenInoticeherattendingtomyinstruction.’)wasarobust
uis predictorofbehaviorchange(Amrhein,Miller,Yahne,Palmer,&Fulcher,2003).Itwas
Lo not the amount of change talk that predicted change (as was previously tested), but the
of increase of change talk over the course of an interview. Specifically, the slope of
sity commitmentchangetalktowardtheendoftheinterviewwasassociated withabstinence
r one year after treatment. A cluster analysis that categorized changers, maintainers, and
e
v
ni strugglers confirmed the importance of the slope of commitment language, with the
U
commitment ofstrugglers dropping towardthe endof the interview.
[
by These findings were replicated in the context of cognitive therapy for drug use
d (Aharonovich, Amrhein, Bisaga, Nunes, & Hasin, 2008) and gambling treatment
e
d
a (Hodgins, Ching, & McEwen, 2009). Extending this line of inquiry, Moyers, Martin,
o
nl Christopher, et al. (2007) found that change talk and sustain talk predicted drinking
w
o outcomes – even when baseline levels of readiness to change and alcohol use were
D
accounted for – butthat they operatedindependently.
Thisbodyofknowledgehasimplicationsforcurrentmodelsofcoachingthatfocuson
the number of ‘sessions’ completed or total coaching hours as predictors of change.
Educationalresearchers arebeginningtopickupthe MImantleacross applicationswith
parents and teachers, alone and in conjunction with other evidence-based practices
(Connell, Dishion, Yasui, & Kavanagh, 2007; Dishion & Kavanagh, 2003; Frey, Lee,
et al., 2013a, 2013b; Herman et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Reinke, Herman, & Sprick,
2011; Reinke et al., 2012; Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Merrell, 2008;Stormshak, Dishion,
Light, & Yasui, 2005). If our understanding of the relationship between these variables
within the context of school-based coaching were improved, it would allow researchers
and practitioners to more intentionally and efficiently target the malleable factors
Advances inSchool Mental Health Promotion 229
associatedwithfavorablechildoutcomes.Next,weproposecoachingactivitiesandskills
consistent with the relational and technical componentsof MI practice.
Coaching activities
Without clearly defined activities, establishing an organizational scheme to articulate
variouscoachingapproachesandstrategies,aswellastoanalyzeandcomparealternative
models,isdifficultatbest.Definingcoachingactivitiesmightalsofacilitatethesystematic
examinationofthesocialvalidityoftheseactivitiesaloneandincombination,andanalysis
oftherelationshipbetweencoachingactivities,implementationfidelityandparent,teacher
and child outcomes. We believe that MI provides a framework to conceptualize these
4
1 activities thatmay accommodatemost,if notall, coachingmodels.
0
st 2 The Motivational Interviewing Navigation Guide (MING) has been proposed as a
u model to guide the coaching process by enhancing engagement and implementation
g
u fidelity of existing interventions (Frey, Lee, et al., 2013a; Lee et al., 2014). Building on
A
6 this model, we propose four activities to conceptualize the coaching process for school-
2
5 based applications: (1) build a working alliance; (2) assess current practices; (3) share
2
9: performancefeedback;and(4)offerextendedconsultation,education,andsupport.These
0
at are grounded in the four processes of MI: engaging, focusing, evoking, and planning.
] Table 1 provides examples of coaching tasks that could be classified in this activity
y
e
r structure.
F
y Manyactivitiesinvolvedinformalcoachingrelationshipscanbecategorizedinthese
d
n domains. Coaching models can be compared and contrasted by the skills required to
A
[. completetheseactivities,aswellastherelativeamountoftimededicatedtoeachactivity.
], Inadditiontobeingusefulfordescribingcoachingmodels,thisconceptualizationprovides
e
vill ausefulframeworkformeasuringtheintensity(i.e.,dosage)ofcoachingactivitiesinthe
uis context of applied research, for examining the social validity of various coaching
Lo activities, and for organizing dose–response analyses. For example, in a recent study of
of the Tertiary First Step to Success intervention (Frey et al., 2014), dosage for the home
sity componentwascalculatedasapercentageofMINGstepscompleted.Twenty-fiveparents
r
e
v
ni
U Table1. Coachingactivitiesandtasks.
[
y
d b Activity Tasks
e
ad Buildaworkingalliance Evoketheteacher’sperceptionofneedfortheevidence-based
o
nl practice
w Identifypotentialbarrierstoimplementation
o
D Discoverandaffirmtheteacher’svalues
Informallyassesstheclassroomecology
Assesscurrentpractices Collectdatathroughformalandinformalinterviews,direct
observation
Shareperformancefeedback Providegraphicdisplayofperformance
Evoketeacher’sperceptionandinterpretationofobservational
data
Encourageteachertoreflectoncurrentpractices
Offerextendedconsultation, Provideinformationoninterventioncomponents(educate)
educationandsupport
Encourageandsupportgoalsetting
Modeleffectiveimplementation;role-playnewskills
Offerrepeatedobservationsandperformancefeedback
230 J.Lee et al.
(76%) completed 75% or more of the steps of the home component. Seven parents
completedtwoorfewerstepsandwereconsiderednon-completers.Ofthe25parentswho
completedtherequiredcomponents,14(60%)committedtoanddevelopedachangeplan,
and most (87%) of those parents implemented it. Eight parents (24%) ended their
participation in the program before the formal invitation for closure was offered. The
authorsexaminedassociationsbetweendosageandchange inparentandchildoutcomes
employing covariate-adjusted regression models, but found no statistically significant
associationsbetweendoseofthehomecomponentandthehome-basedoutcomemeasures.
MI skills
4
1 Table2listsfourskillsthatarefoundationalintheapplicationofMI,andmaybehelpfulto
0
2 efficientlyandeffectivelycompletethecoachingactivitiesdescribedearlier.Summarized
ust by the OARS acronym, these skills are derived from the client-centered counseling
g
u literature(Rogers,1959)andreviewedherefromtheperspectiveofMIwithinthecontext
A
6 ofschool-based coaching.
2
5 The skills are applied differentially across coaching activities and in response to
2
9: changeversussustaintalk.Theskillsareusedstrategicallytocultivatetheimportanceof
0
at theproposedchangeinlightoftheteacher’spreviouslyidentifiedvaluesandtoincrease
] the confidencewith which the teacher willapproach the change process. Although these
y
re skills are common in clinical counseling and are taught in degree programs that prepare
F
y social workers, psychologists, and school counselors, in our experience they are under-
d
n utilized in school-based coaching models. On the other hand, educators and educational
A
[. administratorscanlearnandapplyOARSincoachinginteractions(Freyetal.,thisissue).
], We next proceed to describe the use of these skills within and across the four coaching
e
vill stepsdescribedearlier:(a)buildaworkingalliance,(b)assesscurrentpractices,(c)share
uis performance feedback, and(d) offer extendedconsultation, education,and support.
o
L
f
o
y Build a working alliance
sit Whenbuildingaworkingalliance,open-endedquestionsandaffirmationsareprominent.
r
e
v Theyareusedtodiscoverandaffirmateacher’svalues,goals,andideals(e.g.,‘Canyou
ni
U sharewithmeyourteachingvalues,goals,andhopesforyourstudents’future?’and‘You
[
y care deeply about the students in your class.’). Reflective practice and the use of
b
d summaries allow the coach to check for understanding. During this initial stage of the
e
d
a
o
nl Table2. MIskills(OARS).
w
o
D Method Description
Open-endedquestions Questionsthatinvitetheteachertoelaborate.Oneoracombination
ofthemethodsbelowtypicallyfollowsopen-endedquestions.
Reflections Reflectionsarenotquestions,ratherstatementsthatindicateyour
assumptionoftheirmeaningand‘elicitmoretalkfromtheclient,
particularlychangetalk’(p.71).Changetalkispreferentiallyreflected.
Affirmations Responsesthatnotice,recognize,oracknowledgestrengths,abilities,
effort,actions,ormovementtowardchange.
Summaries Summariesincludelinkingtogetherpriorstatementstheteacherhas
uttered,eitherforthepurposeofencouragingtheteachertoreflectonthe
relationshipbetweenthetwo,clarifyingambivalence,amplifyingchange
talk,solidifyingcommitment,ortransitioningtonewtopics.
Advances inSchool Mental Health Promotion 231
process, complex reflections and the evocation of change talk may be perceived as
attemptsto‘sell’thechangeprocessor‘educate’theteacherandarenotencouraged(e.g.,
‘Because you care so deeply about the students in your class, you are willing to change
yourclassroom management practices.’).
Assessment ofcurrentpractices
Open-endedquestionsandaffirmationsremainprominentduringtheassessmentofcurrent
practices, when they are used to explore teacher practices/behaviors related to the
implementation fidelity of existing interventions or evidence-based practices being
considered. Additionally, open-ended questions are used in response to change talk to
4
1 narrowthefocusoftheinterviewandhighlight,withoutjudgment,currentteacherpractice
0
st 2 thatisconsistentorinconsistentwithidentifiedvaluesandgoals.Forexample,ateacher
u might offer this change talk: ‘I’ve got to do something about this mess!’ An appropriate
g
Au coachresponsewouldbe:‘Youcareaboutthesekidsandyou’rereadyforachange!Ifyou
6 were to focus on your current management system, what would you do differently?’
2
5 Complex reflections and summaries frame the discussion of existing interventions or
2
9: evidence-basedpracticesbeingconsidered.Inresponsetosustaintalk,thecoachpolitely
0
at acknowledgestheteacher,butdoesnotencourageelaboration;thisisoftenaccomplished
] with a simplereflection, followed by anopen-ended questionin order togentlyshift the
y
e
r topic. For example, a teacher might offer this sustain talk: ‘I am way too busy.’ An
F
y appropriate coach response would be, ‘You’ve got a lot on your plate. Are there any
d
n potential benefits tomodifyingyour current classroom management system?’
A
[.
],
e
vill Share performance feedback
uis Anopen-endedquestionoftenbeginsthesharingofperformancefeedbackandisusedto
o
L solicittheteacher’simpressionofdatathathavebeencollected(e.g.,‘Whatdoyoumake
of oftheinformationIhavesharedwithyou?’).Affirmationsareusedtohighlightautonomy
sity and commitment to the process of investigating the possibility of change (e.g., ‘You’ve
r noticed a number of challenges represented by these data. The decision to address these
e
v
ni issues is yourstomake;wherewouldbeagoodplacetostart?’).Open-endedquestions,
U
complexreflections,andsummariesaretheprimaryvehiclestodevelopdiscrepancyand
[
by cultivate importance (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). They are used to explore any gaps
d betweenpreviouslystatedvaluesandgoalsandexaminetheadvantagesofimprovingthe
e
d
a implementationfidelityofexistinginterventionsortheimplementationofevidence-based
o
nl practices.Inordertoanchorasenseofconfidenceinateacher’sabilitytochange,coaches
w
o usecarefullyphrasedreflectionsandobservationsfromtheassessmentofcurrentpractices
D
that highlight teachers’ strengths and competencies (e.g., ‘You care deeply about these
children,andI’veobservedthepositivefeedbackyouprovidethemfirsthand,butyou’re
concerned that it’s notenough – there may bemoreyou can do.’).
Extended consultation, education,andsupport
Ofthefouractivities,extendedconsultation,education,andsupportarethemosttypicalof
coaching practices in educational settings. What is unique about an MI approach to
coaching is that it prefaces and situates the planning and implementation aspects of
coachingwithinthemotivationcontextofthefourMIprocesses.Thecoachfacilitatesthe
development of a change plan, provides educational activities to inform that plan, and
232 J.Lee et al.
workstoscaleanyidentifiedbarrierstotheimplementationoftheplan.Duringthisstep,
theworkingalliancemustbemonitoredandbolsterediftherelationshipbecomesstrained.
During this step, coachesrespond tosustain talkwith open-ended questions (e.g., ‘Walk
me through the plan, and tell me what did and did not work.’). They use affirmations to
acknowledgepersistence,andtheyusecomplexreflectionstoreinforcetheimportanceof
change.Coachesenhanceateacher’sconfidencebyhighlightinghisorherstrengthsand
competencies.
Specificapplications ofMI coachingto increase implementation fidelity
Due to the increased use of MI to facilitate behavior change in parents and teachers
4
1 through coaching relationships, many applications of MI as a coaching framework have
0
st 2 emergedoverthepastdecade.Perhapsthefirstandmoststudiedamongtheseextensions
u ofMIwastheFamilyCheck-Up(FCU).BuildingonthedevelopmentofMIcheck-upsfor
g
Au substanceuseproblems,Dishion,Nelson,andKavanagh(2003)developedtheFCUasa
6 brief motivation enhancement approach for increasing parent’s use of positive behavior
2
5 supports in the home. Originally conceptualized as part of a multi-tiered approach to
2
9: youth behavior problems, the original FCU consists of three-sessions delivered by
0
at clinicians in public schools. Clinicians conduct an intake interview with parents, collect
] ecological assessments of youth and family functioning at home and school, and
y
e
r deliver feedback to parents based on the collected data. All sessions are delivered with
F
y attention to the relational component of MI. Multiple clinical trials in a range of
d
n settingshavedemonstratedthattheFCUproduceslastingchangesinparentbehaviorsand
A
[. student outcomes (Boyd-Ball & Dishion, 2006; Connell et al., 2007; Dishion &
], Kavanagh, 2003).
e
vill Realizing that many of the same motivation and skill barriers to effective parenting
uis practices also interfere with teacher implementation of effective practices, Reinke,
o
L Herman, and Sprick (2011) developed the Classroom Check-Up (CCU). The CCU is a
of teacher coaching model aimed at improving class-wide behavior management practices,
sity as opposed to the more common teacher consultation models that support teachers in
r interveningwith specificproblematic students.TheCCU involves asequential problem-
e
v
ni solvingprocessimplementedwithin thecontextoftherelational component ofMI. Like
U
theFCU,theCCUincludesanintakeinterview,ecologicalassessments,andpersonalized
[
by feedback.Theassessmentsfocusoncriticalclassroomvariablesknowntoimpacteffective
d instruction.Afterdirectobservationofcriticalclassroomvariables,theCCUcoachgives
e
d
a feedback tothe teacher,andthen develops anactionplanbased onthe feedback andthe
o
nl teacher’spreferences.SupportfortheCCUcomesfromthepositiveoutcomesofseveral
w
o multiple baseline studies that explored changing class-wide behavior management
D
practices (see Reinke et al., 2011).
Both the FCU and CCU were originally developed as stand-alone coaching models
intended to encourage use of more effective parent or teacher practices. More recent
applications of MI coaching have focused on extending the FCU and CCU to enhance
implementation fidelity to specific interventions. For example, Reinke et al. (2012) used
the CCU as a coaching model for increasing teacher implementation of the PATHS to
PAX program, an enhanced version of the Good Behavior Game, and the PATHS
intervention, a teacher-delivered social–emotional curriculum. Teachers who struggled
with implementing these programs received individualized coaching based on the CCU
model.TheprimaryadaptationoftheCCUforthispurposewastocollecttheperformance
data and giving it as feedback to teachers. The feedback focused not on classroom