Cycle 2 Data
Instructional Coaching

 

Purpose Statement 

 

To leverage the synergistic effects of the Expectancy Theory of Motivation  (ETM) and the Impact Cycle (IC) to provide comprehensive support and motivation to small group chapel (SGC)  student leaders so that they can implement the mission of the Student Life Chapel office. By incorporating the ETM theoretical framework and instructional coaching practices, this research aims to empower SGC student leaders of Christian Universities with the necessary tools and inspiration to effectively translate the vision of the Spiritual Formation Office (SFO) into practical, transformative actions within their respective small chapel groups.

 

Research Questions

​

1. To what extent does the implementation of the Expectancy Theory and the Impact Cycle affect the motivation and leadership skills of small chapel student leaders?

 

1. How does the intervention impact the alignment between the Spiritual Formation office's vision and its practical implementation within Small Group Chapels?

 

1. What challenges and opportunities are encountered in the process of motivating and empowering student leaders in this context?

 

Target Audience 

 

The target audience for this research Cycle (2) consists of 3 student leaders of four SGCs at a Christian University, specifically those affiliated with the Student Spiritual Formation office. These student leaders are crucial for achieving alignment between the university's vision and the actions taken within small group chapels.

 

Summary of Cycle 2

 

Cycle 2 was all about diving deep with student leaders (SLs) to help them transform their Small Group Chapels (SGCs) in alignment with the mission and vision of the Office of Spiritual Formation through instructional coaching following the Impact Cycle. With limited spots available due to the iterative nature of the Impact Cycle of instructional coaching, I recruited three leaders using a sign-up form, SL-A, SL-B, and SL-C, each eager to improve their communities within their SGCs. The cycle began with a one-on-one pre-observation meeting. Here, I was not just listening to their goals, my goal was to understand the unique context of each SGC. This helped me craft personalized observation protocols for each SGC, focusing on areas they wanted to improve or align with the Student Life Chapel's vision.

 

After the pre-observation meeting and developing the observation protocol, I observed their SGCs firsthand, I recorded and presented data and feedback to each leader. It was not about judgments, but about sparking reflection. We delved into the data together, asking questions like "Does this reflect the environment you envisioned? Or Does this reflect the goal you wanted to achieve?" This reflective process helped them identify areas for change.

 

Next, we turned to find strategies, but before turning to the "instructional playbook," for  strategies, the SL had to first think and respond to the question, “What do you think can be done to achieve this goal or your goal?” This question allowed them to think of a strategy and then own it.  Working together, we identified approaches that would empower them to achieve their goals. Once armed with a strategy and a clear checklist, they implemented the changes in their SGCs.

 

After two weeks of implementing the strategies, it was time to see the impact. With a revamped second observation protocol based on the chosen strategies, I observed their SGCs again. Following this, we held a second post-observation meeting. Here, the focus was on whether the data reflected their goals and the effectiveness of the strategies. After receiving the data, it was time to determine whether the data I presented represented the goal they wanted to achieve while implementing the chosen strategies.  If so, then they could choose to continue using the same strategies or make some changes according to the data presented. This allowed them to refine their approach based on the insights gained. At the end of the second post-observation meeting, they had to evaluate the coaching experience and cycle 2. 

 

The entire cycle spanned over seven weeks, encompassing phases of "identify," "learn," and "improve."-the Impact Cycle.  Each week brought a new step, from pre-observation meetings and initial observations to strategy implementation and final data analysis to fine-tune the strategies or keep them. The timeframes varied slightly depending on each leader's situation, but the core structure remained the same.

 

By the end of the cycle, each leader participated in a final second post-observation meeting. This was their chance to critically assess the effectiveness of the implemented strategies and make informed decisions about continuing or modifying them based on the data. The meetings themselves also varied in length. Some needed more time for me to present complex data, while others focused heavily on strategy selection and the anticipated outcomes. This flexibility ensured each leader received the individualized support they needed.

 It was a continuing journey of their hard work and a sign of their growth as leaders through reflection and having meaningful conversations that examine their progress and staying true to their goals and the vision of the Spiritual formation office.

 

Assessment and Evaluation 

​

Every student leader identified their own challenges and set different goals in accordance with the needs of their SGCs.  At the end of every post-observation meeting,  the student leaders analyzed the data I presented and evaluated to gauge how the strategies implemented solved the issues raised in the pre-observation meetings and how they have furthered the implementation of the SF office’s vision and mission during the 7-week coaching and implementation process.  Additionally, the data collected from the pre- and post-observation protocols will be instrumental in assessing the strategies' effectiveness. By comparing the initial observations with those following the implementation of strategies, I can tell the degree of alignment achieved within the SGCs for that specific goal. Analysis of this data will provide insights into the extent of progress made by each leader and the overall impact of the coaching interventions.

Furthermore, assessments were made based on the successful utilization and integration of the planned strategies and following the checklist of the identified things the student leader was to do within the activities of the SGCs. The data from the second post-observation gave us the degree of the effectiveness of the interventions. The evaluation plan gave us tangible evidence of the success or areas requiring refinement in solving the identified misalignment and leadership challenges among the student leaders participating in Cycle 2, and the student leaders were able to identify what they needed to change as they received the data and during the conversations.

 

Data Collection

 

Cycle 2 relied heavily on qualitative data collection methods to capture the intricacies of each SGC's environment and the student leaders' experiences. Here's a breakdown of the specific strategies I employed to collect the data:

​

Pre-observation Meetings (Identify Stage): These semi-structured interviews served as the foundation for understanding each SGC leader's context. I utilized open-ended questions to delve into their SGC's unique dynamics, current challenges, and desired goals. Additionally, I inquired about their understanding of the SFO's vision and how they envisioned aligning their SGC with it. This initial conversation allowed me to tailor the observation protocol for each leader, ensuring it focused on the most relevant aspects for improvement or alignment and their specific context.

​

Post-observation Meetings (Learn & Improve): Following the initial observations, I conducted facilitated discussions centered around the collected data. Here, I presented observations using a mix of descriptive narratives and objective behavioral counts like sharing the number of people who shared their experiences about an SGC mission trip or the number of conversations that happened during the SGC sessions. However, my primary role was not simply to deliver information. By employing open-ended questions like "How does this data resonate with the environment you envisioned for your SGC community?" I guided leaders through a process of self-reflection. Their interpretations and insights into the data were crucial for understanding the effectiveness of their current approach and identifying areas for growth to achieve their goals and then the vision of SFO of building intimate communities.

​

Coaching Conversations (Learn & Improve): Throughout the cycle, ongoing conversations during coaching sessions provided more valuable qualitative data. As we explored the "instructional playbook" and identified strategies, I encouraged the leaders to share their thought processes and rationale behind their choices. Similarly, during discussions following the second round of observations, their reflections on the implemented strategies and observed changes in SGC dynamics offered rich insights into the impact of the coaching intervention.

By gathering data from these different sources – pre-observation interviews, post-observation discussions, and ongoing coaching conversations – I gained a comprehensive understanding of each SGC's unique context, the student leaders' perspectives, and the effectiveness of the implemented coaching strategies. This multi-faceted approach ensured a rich and nuanced picture of the transformation occurring within each SGC.

​

Data Report/Analysis

 

The data collected during Cycle 2 paints a compelling picture of the coaching intervention's impact on the student leaders (SLs) and their respective SGCs. This detailed analysis of the data is gleaned from pre-observation interviews, post-observation discussions, and coaching conversations with the SL participants.

​

Pre-observation Interviews:

• SL-A: During our initial meeting, SL-A expressed a desire to increase participation in SGC discussions. They said, “We lack the essence of community.  I feel like these guys do not understand why we are meeting and they just come for chapel credit. They are not active and I do not know what to do to make them feel like they are part of the community and get deeply involved.”  They felt many students were hesitant to share, leading to a somewhat stagnant, cold, and lifeless community. Their goal was to foster a more open and engaging atmosphere where the chapel members could belong.

• SL-B: SL-B highlighted a lack of clear goals within their SGC. They felt students were not sure what the group aimed to achieve, leading to a sense of aimlessness. They said, “We need a sense of direction.  I know we have plans and we have our chapel objectives and goals written down, but we have poor execution. I am failing to make our mission and goals come to fruition. Something just feels off.” Their primary objective was to establish clear goals and a mission statement for their SGC and execute those goals.

• SL-C: SL-C mentioned a disconnect between the planned activities and student engagement. They said, “We need to build a strong sense of community with our student volunteers so that they open up. Students feel detached from the program and they just come for chapel credits. Even when they are sharing their experiences in short missions, they do not give constructive feedback.” They observed minimal participation in activities designed to promote fellowship and spiritual growth. Their goal was to implement strategies that would encourage active participation and foster a stronger sense of community.

​

Post-observation Discussions:

Following the initial observations in each SGC, data analysis revealed the following:

• SL-A: The data indicated a limited number of students actively participating in discussions. However, several students exhibited nonverbal cues of attentiveness, suggesting a potential for increased participation with the right encouragement.

• SL-B: Observations highlighted a lack of clarity regarding the SGC's purpose and goals. Students expressed confusion about the group's direction and activities in their planning meeting.

• SL-C: The data revealed minimal participation in planned activities. Students primarily observed others or engaged in side conversations during these times and waited for the SL to speak most of the time.

​

Coaching Conversations and Strategy Implementation:

• SL-A: Based on the data and discussions, we identified strategies like icebreakers and open-ended discussion prompts to encourage participation. SL-A implemented these strategies during the following weeks, and subsequent observations indicated a slight increase in the number of students actively contributing to discussions.

• SL-B: We explored strategies like brainstorming sessions and collaborative goal-setting with the chapel members. The SL asked the chapel members what their chapel should focus on for the semester during the chapel session and they raised their concerns. SL-B implemented these with their SGC, leading to the development of a clear mission statement and specific goals for the semester.

• SL-C: We discussed strategies like incorporating student preferences into activity planning and facilitating small group discussions. SL-C implemented these strategies, resulting in a noticeable increase in student participation and engagement during subsequent observations.

​

Post-observation Meetings (Second Round):

Following the implementation of the chosen strategies, the second round of observations and discussions yielded promising results after two weeks:

• SL-A: Data showed a continued increase in student participation, with more students actively contributing to discussions and expressing their thoughts. SL-A felt the coaching process had empowered them to create a more inclusive environment.

• SL-B: Observations confirmed a clear understanding of the SGC's goals among students. They actively participated in discussions and activities aligned with the established mission statement. SL-B expressed a sense of accomplishment in guiding their SGC toward a more focused and purposeful direction.

• SL-C: The second round of observations revealed a significant improvement in student engagement. Students actively participated in the planned activities, demonstrating a stronger sense of community within the SGC. SL-C attributed this positive change to the implemented strategies and the coaching process.

Overall, the data suggests that the coaching intervention had a significant impact on the student leaders and their SGCs. By providing a structured approach to self-reflection, goal identification, and strategy implementation, the coaching process empowered the leaders to create more engaging and purposeful environments for their SGCs. By having one-on-one conversations and delving deeper into the SLs' experiences, I gain valuable insights on how to better support the student leaders as I minister to them and to better motivate them and support them in achieving their goals because they are all unique.

 

Discussion/Insight

 

The data collected during Cycle 2 offers compelling evidence for the effectiveness of the impact cycle of instructional coaching in addressing the diverse needs of student leaders (SLs) and their SGCs due to its ability to foster one-on-one intentional conversations and self-reflection. Unlike Cycle 1, where using the ETM showed an increase in the motivation of SGC leaders by clarifying the vision and mission of SFO and making the SLs’ understand that their efforts are producing the desired results, Cycle 2's focus on individualized coaching based on the Impact Cycle yielded significant results in helping students to practically realize the SFO mission in their SGCs with tangible results because of the following reasons:

 

First, the pre-observation interviews emerged as a critical tool for uncovering the specific challenges faced by each SGC. Student Leader A (SL-A) quotes highlight their desire for increased participation, while Student Leader B (SL-B) pinpointed a lack of clear goals. This personalized approach allowed for targeted interventions tailored to address each SGC's unique needs.

 

Second, the data suggests that the instructional coaching sessions, following the Impact Cycle, proved fruitful because SL-B's feedback emphasized how coaching helped them not only set clear goals but also understand how seemingly minor actions could impact their mission. This newfound awareness empowered SLs to make informed decisions that foster a stronger SGC community.

 

Lastly, the positive feedback from student leaders highlights the positive impact of coaching; for instance, SL-B emphasized the value of starting coaching earlier in the year, highlighting missed opportunities for increased accomplishment. Their 10/10 rating reflects a strong belief in the coaching's effectiveness. Also, SL-A's perspective when they said, “I think it is very important that every SGC leader goes through this. No SGC is perfect but this instruction coaching has helped me identify where I need to improve and then also find solutions.” reinforces the importance of coaching for all SGC leaders. Their 9/10 rating and quote, "It has given me the courage to try out new things and be creative," demonstrate the instructional coaching's ability to empower and motivate leaders and enhance their leadership skills. Additionally, SL-C's feedback highlights the power of one-on-one coaching in overcoming challenges. Their statement, "Talking to someone opened my mind to think better," underscores the value of personalized guidance in overcoming obstacles and generating solutions. Their 9/10 rating, with a desire for more time, reflects a strong appreciation for coaching's benefits.

 

Overall, Cycle 2 data reveals a significant positive impact of instructional coaching’s impact cycle on student leaders and their SGCs. The program's ability to adapt to individual needs and empower and motivate leaders with the skills and strategies to build strong communities positions it as a valuable tool. The desire for extended coaching opportunities expressed by student leaders suggests a clear need for continued program development and support.

 

Surprises

 

While the coaching intervention yielded positive results across all SGCs, Cycle 2 presented a few unexpected discoveries:

• Unanticipated Impact: The coaching process had a more profound effect on student leaders than initially anticipated. Leaders like SL-B, who initially focused on establishing clear goals, expressed a sense of accomplishment in fostering a more focused and purposeful environment within their SGC. This suggests the coaching intervention's potential to not only address identified needs but also create a ripple effect, leading to broader positive change.

• Student Agency: The student leaders surprised me with their resourcefulness in implementing chosen strategies. For instance, SL-C incorporated student preferences into activity planning by conducting a quick poll at the beginning of a session. This initiative not only increased engagement but also demonstrated the leaders' ability to adapt and personalize the coaching strategies to their SGC's unique context.

Cycle 2, took my project from not only motivating SGC leaders to helping them implement their goals and achieve the SFO vision and mision within their SGCs with tangible results.

 

Conclusion/Future Direction

 

The data collected during Cycle 2 is valuable in refining the overall efforts of motivating and empowering SGC leaders effectively.  As we plan to provide instructional coaching to all SGCs as an empowering and motivating resource adding the following steps and instruments may make the overall effectiveness of the coaching process greater.

​

First, the data underscores the importance of tailoring the SFO efforts of empowering SGCs to individual SGC contexts and leader needs. While the core structure of pre-observation meetings, data analysis, and strategy selection remains valuable, incorporating a needs assessment tool at the outset could provide a more nuanced understanding of each leader's specific challenges and goals.

Second, the data shows that the success of the coaching process hinged heavily on the student leaders' capacity for self-reflection. Enriching the program with journaling prompts or reflective exercises could further empower leaders to analyze their SGC dynamics and identify areas for improvement.

​

Lastly, the positive experiences of SL-A, SL-B, and SL-C can serve as powerful motivators for future participants. Creating a platform for leaders to share their success stories and best practices with their peers could foster a sense of community and inspire others to embark on their own coaching journeys.

​

In the end, Cycle 2’s instructional coaching impact cycle program has proven to be a more impactful tool for motivating and cultivating effective leadership and fostering vibrant SGC communities. It has provided comprehensive support and motivation to SGC  student leaders to implement the mission of the Student Life Chapel Office by empowering them with the necessary tools and strategies to effectively translate the vision of the SFO into practical, transformative actions within their respective small chapel groups.

​

References

Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2018). Better conversations: Coaching ourselves and each other to be more credible, caring, and connected. Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2021). The definitive guide to instructional coaching: Seven factors for success. ASCD.

 

​