If you were involved in education in England before 2010, it’s likely you’ve had some experience of “brain gym”.

Now debunked, brain gym approaches are predicated on the idea that there is a link between physical movement and cognitive function, something that is based on firm evidence.

However, in an attempt to create a product that could be marketed to schools and easily implemented, the evidence in this area was stretched beyond credulity.

Teachers were encouraged to interrupt lessons to get children to jump or laugh or sing, on the understanding that this would help them to learn better when, in fact, the links to learning were not that clear cut.

This lethal mutation was the result of a genuine attempt to take a complicated evidence base and turn it into a “plug-and-play” solution that busy school leaders could import and implement to improve outcomes.

It’s a common trap for educational interventions to fall into and one that we are very much aware of in our work to promote the use of instructional coaching in schools.

What is instructional coaching?

Instructional coaching involves a trained coach working individually with a teacher to help them learn and adopt new teaching practices. There is a clear and compelling evidence base showing that, when understood and implemented correctly, instructional coaching can be an effective way of improving teacher quality and pupil outcomes.

The risk is that school leaders lack the time to make their own assessments of that evidence and buy in packages or approaches that fail to fully replicate the necessary steps to ensure success.

One specific area of challenge lies in translating the language of instructional coaching from its US origins to suit a UK school audience. In US English, “instruction” could be considered a synonym for “pedagogy” - in other words, a neutral term about the practice of teaching. In the UK, meanwhile, “instruction” is a more loaded term; it feels directive and hierarchical.

We have observed how this mutates understanding of the original research, which, amongst other things, shows the importance of partnership and equity in the relationship between the coach and the coachee. However, UK practitioners often approach coaching through the lens of the coach being positioned as the expert person, telling the novice how to do things differently and better.

If we want to avoid this, and other pitfalls, we need to engage with the evidence fully. There are no shortcuts, no systems or technologies that can replicate the necessary work that turns the theories of instructional coaching into school-improvement practices.

That does not mean there is no role for experts to support schools; leaders will continue to be busy and simply cannot be expected to be on top of all the evidence. But it is incumbent on any of us committed to promoting instructional coaching to do so with integrity.

So, what does the evidence base tell us about how to use this approach well? The original research on instructional coaching began at the University of Kansas in response to the consistent failure of traditional professional development to produce lasting change.

Four dimensions of effective coaching

Researchers conducted qualitative, quantitative and design studies in schools in Kansas, Oregon and Washington State. That research led to the identification of the following four dimensions of successful instructional coaching:

1. Principles

Instructional coaches see teachers as professionals, so they engage with them as partners. During instructional coaching, teachers have a voice in analysing reality, goal setting, identifying strategies and other aspects of their professional development. They are not the passive receptacles of ideas, but professionals actively engaged in their own learning.

2. Skills

Instructional coaching is not about telling teachers what to do, but it’s also not about withholding information that would be helpful - so instructional coaches need specific coaching skills to be effective. Instructional coaches listen effectively, ask deep questions and explain ideas dialogically in conversations where the teacher is a full partner.

3. Expertise

Instructional coaches need to have expertise in at least three areas. First, they need to understand the beliefs, skills and cycle at the heart of instructional coaching.

Second, they need to know how to gather student engagement and achievement data in the classroom. Data is essential for highlighting important factors in the classroom, identifying goals and monitoring progress.

Third, because their work focuses on how teachers teach, coaches need a deep understanding of what research says about the most effective teaching practices. The most effective instructional coaches are not tied to one instructional model, but can draw from a variety of strategies to help teachers help students hit their goals.

4. A coaching cycle

To help teachers set and hit goals for their students, instructional coaches use a coaching cycle such as the three-stage “impact cycle” developed by the Instructional Coaching Group.

During stage one, “identify”, coaches partner with teachers to identify a clearer picture of reality, a student-focused goal and a strategy the teacher will employ to hit the goal.

During stage two, “learn”, coaches dialogically explain teaching strategies, often through the use of checklists that teachers, in partnership with coaches, adapt to fit the needs of teachers and their students. Teachers also see the practices being modelled before they use them themselves. This can occur when a teacher watches a coach model a new practice in the classroom, observes another teacher, watches a video or in other ways.

During stage three, “improve”, the teacher and coach make modifications to the strategy or goal until the goal is met.

Start with the students

In addition to these points, another defining attribute of instructional coaching is that teachers identify the changes they want to see in students before they identify the strategies they plan to use. A student-focused goal provides evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy being implemented, increases teacher motivation and keeps the emphasis where it belongs: on positive outcomes for students.

Some education interventions are compelling because they promise quick wins, and get more traction than the evidence supporting them would justify.

We believe that in the case of instructional coaching, the approach can more than live up to the hype. But that will only happen if we maintain a clear focus on the evidence base, even as practice evolves to respond to a changing system.

Gareth Conyard is CEO of Teacher Development Trust (TDT). Jim Knight is founder and senior partner of the Instructional Coaching Group (ICG). He will be delivering the TDT’s David Monis-Weston Lecture in spring 2026

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android