lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher education – A review of literature

Hsiu-Lien Lu*

Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8134, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 September 2008Received in revised form16 July 2009Accepted 6 October 2009

Keywords:Peer coachingStudent teachingStudent teachersThe field experiencePreservice teacher education

* Tel.: þ1 912 478 0210.E-mail address: hlu@georgiasouthern.edu

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.015

a b s t r a c t

This study reviewed eight studies selected from the ERIC and Education Complete databases covering theyears 1997 through 2007. The goals of this study were to identify similarities and differences of peercoaching and to examine its feasibility and challenges in preservice teacher education. The four simi-larities among the studies identified are (i) study participants, (ii) coaching relationships, (iii) coachingduration, and (iv) coaching strategies. The differences identified were in relation to the following fourareas: (i) the purposes of peer coaching, (ii) the nature of the field-based experiences of the programmes,(iii) the training for peer coaching, and (iv) the effects of peer coaching. Peer coaching appears to possessunique advantages and have much value for preservice teacher education. How barriers to thecomprehensive recognition of peer coaching could be eliminated in preservice teacher education is alsodiscussed.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Peer coaching has a relatively brief history of less than 30 yearssince its debut in preservice teacher education (Englert & Sugai,1983). Over the years, it has been one strategy espoused by a fewteacher education programmes around the world to enhance theexperiences and development of preservice teachers. Furthermore,it has been evidenced in literature as helpful in various aspects forfield-based experiences. While well documented with positiveaspects in developing future teachers, nonetheless, peer coaching isnot seen an extensive acceptance in preservice teacher education.This lack of comprehensive recognition of peer coaching inpreservice education deserves an in-depth exploration.

Peer coaching was initially adopted from inservice teacherprofessional development. Peer coaching, by definition, generallyinvolves two colleagues engaged in a mutually supportive rela-tionship (Neubert & McAllister, 1993). Peer coaching did not appearin teacher education until 1980 (Joyce & Showers, 1980, Joyce &Showers, 1983), when it was used as a follow-up to inserviceprofessional development (Leggett & Hoyle, 1987). Inspired by theresults that peer coaching brought to inservice professionaldevelopment, researchers have adopted peer coaching in preser-vice teacher education since the early 1980s (Englert & Sugai, 1983)and have utilised the strategy in the field practicum for preservice

All rights reserved.

teachers (Lu, 2007, Lu, 2009; McAllister & Neubert, 1995; Morgan &Menlove, 1994).

Since its adoption in the preparation of preservice teachers, peercoaching has inspired a number of studies and likewise has usheredin a new energy to preservice teacher preparation For example,a peer coaching project in Canada paired interns engaging in thesupervision cycle in conjunction with the supervision provided bythe cooperating teacher in two consecutive terms of a 16-weekextended practicum (Pavelich, 1992). Although they were providedwith guidelines of the supervision process, the interns wereallowed to decide on their level of involvement in the process. Theobjective of this project was to provide interns with a form of peersupport in the field, to augment instructional effectiveness, to giveinterns coaching experience that they could use with futurecolleagues in the school system, and to reduce the workload thatwas required of the cooperating teacher. The results indicated thatparticipating interns perceived the process as generally effectiveand helpful. The eight cooperating teachers’ reports varied; fivewho involved in the process actively considered it beneficial tointerns, while three who participated in a passive level did not findit beneficial to themselves.

In another example, inspired by the effectiveness of peercoaching in inservice professional development, Neubert andMcAllister (1993) were curious about its application in a preservicesetting. Their study comprised elementary education studentsenrolled in a junior level curriculum and methods courses inMaryland, US. The programme involved the preservice studentsengaging with a variety of instructional strategies for one day on

H.-L. Lu / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753 749

campus and practiced teaching in assigned classrooms for another.The students coached each other in the field after they receiveda training workshop that introduced them to a protocol of Praise–Question–Polish conferencing style, where peers started withpraise of teaching aspects well done, then asked questions aboutpractice and closed up with strengths and areas for futureimprovement.

Two other peer-coaching projects, with 21 and 24 studentsenrolled in respectively, were conducted with low-performanceinterns in a preservice Special Education programme in Utah, US(Morgan, Gustafson, Hudson, & Salzberg, 1992; Morgan, Menlove,Salzberg, & Hudson, 1994). In each project, five trainees with lowperformance were selected from the students. Deviating from otherexamples, these two peer-coaching projects used experiencedundergraduates to coach the selected students, who received eithercourse credit or paid tuition to conduct the peer coaching tasks.

There have been other studies which show beneficial resultsamong student teachers. For example, some studies report thatpeer coaching enables student teachers to become active learnersas both teachers and coaches of a fellow teacher (Goker, 2006;Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Others find that peer coaching facilitatescollaboration and collegiality among student teachers (Benedetti &Reed, 1998; Neubert & Stover, 1994; Slater & Simmons, 2001; Weiss& Weiss, 1998). Still others contend that peer coaching has gener-ated structured professional conversations between studentteachers (Arnau, Kahrs, & Kruskamp, 2004; Benedetti & Reed, 1998;Jenkins, Hamrick, & Todorovich, 2002; Neubert & McAllister, 1993;Neubert & Stover, 1994; Weiss & Weiss, 1998). These findings attestto the advantages that preservice teacher preparation programmeswould aim to achieve for the programme performance.

This study examined the scholarship aspect of peer coaching inpreservice teacher education over the year 1997 through 2007. Theselection of studies examined for this review was conducted usingthe ERIC and Education Complete databases. Eight studies from theUnited States and New Zealand were selected utilising thefollowing criteria: i) Did the study focus on preservice field expe-rience? ii) Was peer coaching the object of the study? iii) Did thestudy have an empirically persuasive methodology? iv) Did thestudies relate diverse structures and outcomes? The primary goal ofthis synthesis and analysis was to identify similarities and differ-ences of peer coaching in the studies reviewed. This review alsoexamined the feasibility and challenges of peer coaching inpreservice teacher preparation.

2. Commonalities in peer-coaching studies

The rationale of identifying common features among the studieswas to obtain a sense of the inherent applicability and value of peercoaching to preservice teacher education. The analysis indicatedthat, although the studies had unique foci, they appeared to haveseveral similarities relating to (i) study participants; (ii) coachingrelationships; (iii) coaching duration; and (iv) coaching strategies.

2.1. Study participants

The findings in the eight studies reviewed indicated that studentteachers were the only substantial participants, which is consistentwith the study of Neubert and McAllister (1993). Insignificantexceptions appeared in two studies. In Hasbrouck’s study (1997),seven consulting teachers were involved in informal interviews;Mallette, Mabeady, and Harper (1999) included three pupils withspecial learning needs as passive participants who responded to thestudent teachers’ teaching. Although there is a legitimate argumentthat the focus of a study determines and delimits the participant,the fact that the overwhelming majority of the studies reviewed

were limited to student teachers as participants is a cause forconcern. Since cooperating teachers and university supervisorscomplete the triad in the student teaching experience, their voice isvery important in getting a deeper understanding of the process.Excluding the perceptions and experiences of such key playersundermines these studies of a more complete and complex pictureof the practicum process. The clear implication from these studies isthat future research should have a broader scope to include otherstakeholders as participants.

Further examination reveals two noteworthy characteristics ofthe participants in the selected studies. First, all participants werefrom current cohorts of student teachers. This implies that all thestudies were short-term research projects and that the results didnot represent any long-term effects of peer coaching. Second, thenumber of participants was limited, ranging from 3 to 32 studentteachers, which implied that the projects in general were in a smallscale. These findings suggest that future studies should providefindings on the effects of the strategy overtime as well as a largernumber base for generalization.

2.2. Coaching relationships

Unlike the studies of Morgan et al. (1992) and Morgan et al.(1994) that used experienced undergraduates as coaches, all thestudies reviewed involved only peers. The relational structure ofpeer coaching is perhaps the core of this strategy since the outcomesrely heavily on mutual respect and trust. In a comprehensive liter-ature review, Ackland (1991) found two types of coaching thatinvolve peers in different working relationships: expert coaching andreciprocal coaching. While expert coaching occurs when teacherswith more advanced expertise provide assistance to other teachers,reciprocal coaching refers to peers with similar experience andknowledge mentoring each other. The scholarship on peer coachingseems to present an incomplete picture on the subject as the studiesreviewed indicate that peer-coaching relationship in preserviceteacher education is predominantly reciprocal. Even though ina couple of the studies participants reported peers being less effec-tive than university supervisors or classroom teachers (Kurtts &Levin, 2000) and lacking in coaching skills (Kurtts & Levin, 2000;Ovens, 2004); it was evident that overall student teachers collabo-rated and supported each other through the field experiences. Thismutually supportive relationship minimized the feeling that oneperson is dominating the other.

2.3. Coaching durations

The review indicated that peer-coaching durations coincidedwith those of the teacher education programmes studied, rangingfrom four weeks to an entire semester. Generally, peer coachingcommences around the time student teachers begin their fieldexperiences. This practice is supported by researchers who arguethat once student teachers are in the field, the earlier peer coachingbegins, the better (Benedetti & Reed, 1998). Another researcher,Feiman-Nemser (2001), also emphasized that peer coachingencourages serious conversations about teaching that are valuableresources for developing and improving student teachers’ practices.The idea is that student teachers can begin this journey by estab-lishing a collaborative and supportive tone through peer coachingfrom the onset of the practicum.

2.4. Coaching strategies

Peer coaching in student teaching is designed to ensure that thisexperience enhances prospective teachers’ ability to analyse andreflect on their practice and is ensured not to be a random activity.

H.-L. Lu / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753750

This is reflected in the use of structured feedback as a consistentfeature of peer coaching reported in the studies reviewed. It is truethat in some studies the process of peer coaching was supported bycertain interventions to aid the documentation of observations. Forexample, Hasbrouck (1997) used The Scale for Coaching EffectiveInstruction protocol; Fry and Hin (2006) employed wirelesscommunication devices; and Mallette et al. (1999) utilised thePeabody Peer Assisted Learning Strategies. Nonetheless, the basicstructured feedback in the studies reviewed overall involved thethree-stage clinical supervisory techniques – the pre-observation,observation, and post-observation conferences. These studiesindicated that peer coaching in the preservice practice wasimplemented in a systematic and structured manner.

3. Differences in the studies

The purpose of identifying different features among the studieswas to explore the effects and capacity of peer coaching topreservice teacher education. These differences largely have to dowith the structure and outcome of the peer coaching exercise. Forthe purposes of this discussion, the key differences were identifiedin the following areas: i) the purposes of peer coaching, ii) thenature of the field-based experiences of the programmes, iii) thetraining for peer coaching, and iv) the effects of peer coaching.

3.1. Purposes of peer coaching

The central purpose of peer coaching in preservice teachereducation is to enhance student teachers’ professional development(Pavelich, 1992). To maximize the effectiveness of peer coachingthere also needs to be formal oversight and support from the teachereducation programme. One context for this kind of formal support isa methods course that runs concurrent with the field experience(Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Gemmell, 2003; Lu, 2009). This is anavenue that can provide student teachers the opportunity to sharecoaching experiences. The findings, nonetheless, revealed that notall the studies reviewed were designed to combine a related courseconcurrent with student teaching. Five of the eight studies didconnect methods courses with the field-based experiences(Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Fry & Hin, 2006; Gemmell, 2003;Jenkins & Veal, 2002; Kurtts & Levin, 2000). Although it is not clearfrom these five studies regarding the nature of the discussion aroundthe peer-coaching experience, it is reasonable to assume thatstudents would have shared their experiences about what wastaking place in the field. In the case of the other three studies that didnot have a methods course, there is nothing to indicate that therewas any alternative formal context that provided an opportunity forthis kind of conversation. Hence an opportunity may have beenmissed to strengthen the knowledge and to enrich the experiencesof student teachers.

In designing peer coaching that is devoid of professionalsupervisory support, one assumes that student teachers have therequisite skills to effectively support each other in the field. Thesedesigns mitigate supervisors of their professional responsibilitiesand effectively shortchange student teachers. Although Pierce andMiller (1994) found that peer coaching is as effective as universitysupervision, two studies reviewed reported that student teacherslacked the skills to analyse lessons and provide meaningful feed-back (Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Ovens, 2004).

3.2. The nature of field-based experiences

This analysis indicates that peer coaching was implemented invaried settings and programmes during field-based experiences.Three programmes employed peer coaching in physical education

(Fry & Hin, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2002; Ovens, 2004); two conductedin special needs settings (Hasbrouck, 1997; Mallette et al., 1999);one programme in a general practicum setting (Gemmell, 2003);one paired student teachers up in the same classroom in anexperimental group (Bowman & McCormick, 2000); and the finalone in the context of a Professional Development School (Kurtts &Levin, 2000). Overall, seven programmes were at the elementaryand one at the secondary level. The application of diverse contextsdemonstrates the scope of possibility for peer coaching in preser-vice teacher education.

One noteworthy point of observation of the peer-coachingsettings is that the majority of the studies were conducted at theelementary level, with the exception of Ovens’s study (2004).Ovens’s study was the only project carried out in a secondary schooland the only case in which students had difficulty gaining access tothe field-based experiences. The findings from this study expose thereasons there is more peer coaching at the elementary level. Theauthors speculate that the issue is attributed to a number of inter-connected reasons. First, the elementary teacher is responsible forteaching all the required subjects which creates a greater need tohave student teachers in their classroom (Lu, 2005, 2007). This, inturn, allows room for peer coaching to obtain access. On the otherhand, most secondary teachers teach single disciplines, tend to workwith colleagues, and feel more able to cope with professionaldemands without the participation of student teachers. Moreimportantly, the elementary classroom is flexible in terms of timemanagement because teachers are more in charge of their schedule(Lu, 2005, 2007). Conversely, teaching in secondary settings isdepartmental and block-based hence has less autonomy regardingclass scheduling. Finally, elementary teachers are willing to sharepower with student teachers because they need helpers on the team(Lu, 2005). Teachers in secondary classrooms, comparatively, seemto hold tight to schedule and coverage for the day and hesitate to risksharing power with student teachers.

3.3. Training for peer coaching

The results further indicate that with the exception of one pro-gramme, most of the programmes studied provided training tostudent teachers before peer coaching; however the durations variedfrom programme to programme, ranging from 2 to 9 h. In most casesthe training involved coaching techniques of how to identify goals,collect data, and present data (Fry & Hin, 2006; Gemmell, 2003;Jenkins et al., 2002; Kurtts & Levin, 2000). In some cases, peercoaching involved technology and necessitated additional training.For example, a number of studies used electronic devices such asvideotapes (Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Hasbrouck, 1997), audio-tapes (Mallette et al., 1999), or ear-bugs (Fry & Hin, 2006) to captureobserved behaviors. When supplementary tools were utilised, thetraining required more time and more complicated procedures(Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Hasbrouck, 1997).

How advanced student teachers were into the practicumexperience was an important factor that determined the amountand duration of training. Ovens’s study was a prominent example ofthis situation (2004). In this study, the 12 selected participantswere fourth-year students who already had a range of previouspracticum experiences. Therefore, Ovens did not provide anytraining on the assumption that the participants had been familiarwith the school culture, established basic teaching competencies,and were able to take a step further in their learning to coach eachother. However, the participants in this study complained abouta lack of skill to analyse lessons. The results of this case demon-strate that training is essential for ensuring success in peer coach-ing and when training is lacking, various problems emerge.Mallette et al. (1999) also reported that with training, student

H.-L. Lu / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753 751

teachers were able to provide instructionally relevant feedback totheir partners. Such findings reinforce the view that trainingenhances student teachers’ ability to support each other and that itis important to take training seriously before sending studentteachers on the peer-coaching journey.

3.4. Effects of peer coaching

The findings illustrate the benefits as well as disadvantages ofpeer coaching in student teaching. To synthesize and analyse thebenefits of peer coaching, three aspects of student teaching wereexplored: a) the promotion of practicum as a site for teachereducation, b) the improvement of professionalism, and c) theprovision of affective support.

3.4.1. The promotion of practicum as a site for teacher educationPeer coaching facilitated learning in the context and fostered

practicum as a site for teacher education. For example, some studiesfound that peer coaching improved instructional skills amongstudents teachers (Hasbrouck, 1997; Mallette et al., 1999). Also,Bowman and McCormick (2000) reported that student teachersdemonstrated effectiveness in language lessons and were able toscaffold each other in learning to teach. Finally, other studies foundthat peer coaching enabled student teachers to focus on studentlearning rather than on classroom management techniques (Jenkinset al., 2002) and to improve student learning outcomes (Malletteet al.,1999). This is an important point, as neophyte teachers tend tofocus on issues related to classroom management.

3.4.2. The improvement of professionalismPeer coaching was found to have helped student teachers

improve their professionalism. In Hasbrouck’s study (1997), peercoaching was reported to have contributed to the development ofstudent teachers’ openness to accept professional criticism of theirteaching. This is a positive sign for the young professional as thisindicates respect for the insights and experiences of colleagues.Additionally, Ovens (2004) found that with peer coaching, studentteachers became more accountable and committed. Lastly, otherresearchers reported that peer coaching created professionalconversations among student teachers through positive andinstructionally relevant feedback (Bowman & McCormick, 2000;Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Mallette et al., 1999), which is consistent withthe findings in other studies on peer coaching (Neubert &McAllister, 1993; Neubert & Stover, 1994; Weiss & Weiss, 1998).

3.4.3. The provision of affective supportPeer coaching was reported to have provided student teachers

with affective support – the emotional dimension of their experi-ence. According to some studies, peer coaching made studentteachers feel more relaxed, comfortable, and confident (Fry & Hin,2006; Hasbrouck, 1997; Kurtts & Levin, 2000). Additionally, studentteachers reported that they have developed a mutual sense of trust,honesty and equality (Ovens, 2004).

The emotional support in peer coaching, however, could bereplaced when student teachers were backed by other campusefforts. In an experimental study, Bowman and McCormick (2000)reported no significant difference in collegiality among peers. Inthat study, student teachers in the experimental group peercoached each other in pairs, while those in the control group weresupervised by university supervisors. The lack of significantdifference in outcome regarding affective support, however, mighthave resulted from two practices involved in the implementation ofthe study. First, both the experimental and control groups receivedsimilar training regarding desired teacher behavior and held postconferences with either peers or university supervisors. And,

second, both groups attended a weekly seminar separately, inwhich all student teachers engaged in in-depth discussion andreflection about the skills they learned and practiced. The reportedoutcome suggests that, if provided with sufficient theoretical andpractical knowledge regarding teacher behavior, supervisorysupport, and weekly integrated seminars, it is likely that studentteachers will forge collegial support needed for the exercise.

Although there are reported merits in these studies, someproblems were identified. Kurtts and Levin (2000) reported threemajor challenges in peer coaching: scheduling for peer coaching,some having weaker partners, and generally lacking the skills toprovide feedback. Ovens (2004) also reported difficulties such asincreased workload for student teachers, poor organization of theteacher education programme, time constraints, and a lack of skillsamong student teachers to analyse lessons. Closer examinationrevealed that some of the reported problems may be attributed toshortcomings in the teacher preparation programme, and peercoaching essentially brings them to the surface. For example,students lacking skills to analyse lessons is more likely a weaknessof the preservice programme than it is a function of peer coaching,especially when training is not provided. Others, however, call forprogramme support, such as partner selection or pairing, timearrangement, reasonable workload, and proper organization.

4. Feasibility and challenges of peer coachingto preservice practice

The purpose of examining the feasibility issue was to identifythe advantages of peer coaching that could sustain its integration inpreservice practice based on the literature reviewed. And thepurpose of examining the challenges was to explore how theproblems of peer coaching could be resolved through programmeefforts.

4.1. Feasibility of peer coaching

Based on the literature reviewed, peer coaching in preserviceteacher education has its unique advantages. First, student teachersare at the similar levels in terms of experience and knowledge(Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Fry & Hin, 2006; Gemmell, 2003;Hasbrouck, 1997; Jenkins et al., 2002; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Malletteet al., 1999; Ovens, 2004). This allows teacher educators to preparecommon materials and to carry out training without being inter-fered by multiple variants regarding readiness. Second, studentteachers are engaged with the same course (Bowman & McCor-mick, 2000; Fry & Hin, 2006; Gemmell, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2002;Kurtts & Levin, 2000) or in the same time frame (Hasbrouck, 1997;Mallette et al., 1999; Ovens, 2004). Therefore, time issue, a problemidentified by the literature reviewed, could be resolved throughprogrammatic negotiation with related people on campus as wellas in the field. Finally, peer coaching is cost efficient (Dodds, 1979;Joyce & Showers, 1987) since it is part of the programme curriculum(Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Fry & Hin, 2006; Gemmell, 2003;Hasbrouck, 1997; Jenkins et al., 2002; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Malletteet al., 1999; Ovens, 2004). These advantages could sustain thefeasibility and serve as a rationale for the incorporation of peercoaching in preservice teacher education.

4.2. Challenges of peer coaching

One important goal for preservice education is to educate futureteachers to collaborate in the learning community and becomecritically reflective on their practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001;Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2004). This goal is to ensure thatfuture teachers will be able to face the ever-changing educational

H.-L. Lu / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753752

context. Nonetheless, this goal can be defined and implemented invarious ways. Oftentimes it is regarded as fulfilled when interns areworking in a classroom ‘‘collaborating’’ with and supervised byexperts and provided the opportunity to reflect upon what is beingpointed out (Henry & Beasley, 1996; Kent, 2001). The goal, conse-quently, is passively achieved along this path. Proactive definition,on the other hand, starts from a teacher education programme’sespousing the notion that teacher education is a continuum andthat initial preparation should ensure future teachers’ potential togrow (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Glickman et al., 2004). Only with thisnotion can a programme embrace a proactive curriculum andincorporate strategies that encourage active learning, such as peercoaching (Goker, 2006; Weiss & Weiss, 1998). Peer coaching,according to this review, enables student teachers to become moreactive and reflective learners and willing collaborators in thelearning community (Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Kurtts & Levin,2000; Mallette et al., 1999).

This review reveals that, although many of its benefits have beenidentified, peer coaching has not been a prevalent practice inpreservice education since its debut in the 1980s. This evidenceindicates an atypical practice of peer coaching in preservice teachereducation. One reason for this lack of comprehensive recognitionmay be because it requires teacher educators’ additional vision,deliberation, organization and action to incorporate peer coachingsmoothly with an already packed programme. These required effortsmight have deterred the impetus of teacher educators. One examplefrom the literature reviewed illustrates the effects of programmeefforts. Of the eight programmes studied, all but Ovens’s (2004)provided student teachers with training before peer coaching,which demonstrated that programme efforts are required in orderfor peer coaching to be effective. Consequently, without anysurprise, the participants receiving no training complained the mostabout various limitations resulting from the lack of programmaticsupport (Ovens, 2004). This finding suggests that certain degree ofprogrammatic support is necessary and crucial in order to achievethe success of peer coaching. This inevitable requirement of pro-gramme efforts might have also explained the reason peer coachinghas not been common in preservice teacher education.

Peer coaching has been challenged because of its disadvantages.According to the literature reviewed, concerns about observationskills, time arrangement, workload, and programme organizationare the major disadvantages of peer coaching (Kurtts & Levin, 2000;Ovens, 2004). These disadvantages are closely related to the degreeof programme support and tend to become problems and stum-bling blocks that challenge the decision of whether peer coachingshould be integrated in the programme of study. Consequently,these problems are most likely best resolved through programmeefforts, starting from a programme design. It is reasonable to arguethat, only when teacher education programme designers believethat peer coaching can be used to achieve programme goals in anactive manner, could a programme design incorporated with peercoaching be engendered. In the same token, only when a balancedcurriculum is created, could the problems of peer coaching beaddressed.

In order to confront the identified problems, a balancedcurriculum should encompass various elements. First and foremost,the curriculum should ensure that time is well arranged on campusas well as in the field. Second, it should ensure that interns areproperly trained and equipped with skills needed for peer coaching.Further, the programme should make sure that student workload iscommunicated and adjusted among course instructors to preventredundancy. Finally, it should guarantee that purposes and proce-dures of peer coaching are communicated among all membersinvolved so as to avoid confusion, speculation, and inaccurateassumption. In summary, in order for peer coaching to prevail in

preservice teacher education, three important conditions arenecessary. First, teacher education programme designers shouldappreciate the empowering potential of peer coaching for theprospective teacher’s progressive development. Second, an orga-nized, balanced and meaningful teacher education programme ofstudy should be crafted and implemented. Finally, the imple-mentation phase should be judiciously followed through andconsistently evaluated.

5. Conclusion

One contribution of this review is that it helps portray thepicture of peer coaching in the past decade by comparing andcontrasting the commonalities and differences of the studiesreviewed. Four similarities of the studies reviewed are identified.First, the majority of participants were student teachers. Second,the coaching relationship was basically reciprocal. Then, thecoaching durations coincided with the durations of the pro-grammes. Finally the basic coaching strategies were the same. Onthe other hand, the results also indicate differences. First, thepurposes of peer coaching were not solely to improve studentteachers’ professional development. In some cases, studentteachers were used to strengthen the programmes without thesupport of other professional figures than the course instructor.Additionally, peer coaching was applied in various field settings andschool levels. And lastly, the durations of peer-coaching training inthe studies reviewed varied, with one study not providing training.

Another contribution of this paper is that it explores solutions tothe challenges that peer coaching faces in preservice teachereducation. Peer coaching, according to the literature reviewed,appears to possess unique advantages and values for preserviceteacher education. Some practical problems, however, might havediscouraged the decision of integrating peer coaching into practice.In order for peer coaching to be happening in preservice teachereducation, this study suggests three important conditions: a) pro-gramme vision that believes the empowering potential of peercoaching for prospective teachers’ progressive development, b) anorganized, balanced and meaningful teacher education programmeof study, and finally c) the implementation phase being followedthrough and constantly evaluated.

Peer coaching is evidentially profitable in preservice teachereducation in many aspects. However, the scholarship is rarelyavailable regarding whether peer coaching could be implementedin a regular teacher education programme. This lack of research onpeer coaching in regular preservice teacher education points to thequestion of how feasible peer coaching is as part of the teachereducation curricula and in turn an area for future research.Furthermore, if peer coaching is applicable in a large-scale imple-mentation, the extent of its effects on the entire preservice teachereducation programme and the future inservice professionaldevelopment would warrant further inquiry.

References

Ackland, A. (1991). A review of the peer coaching literature. Journal of Staff Devel-opment, 12(1), 22–26.

Arnau, L., Kahrs, J., & Kruskamp, B. (2004). Peer coaching: veteran high schoolteachers take the lead on learning. NASSP Bulletin, 88(639), 26–41.

Benedetti, T. A., & Reed, M. K. (1998). Supervising student teachers using peercoaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.

Bowman, B. L., & McCormick, S. (2000). Comparison of peer coaching versustraditional supervision effects. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4),256–261.

Dodds, P. (1979). A peer assessment model for student teacher supervision. ResearchQuarterly, 50(1), 12.

H.-L. Lu / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 748–753 753

Englert, C. S., & Sugai, G. (1983). Teacher training: improving trainee performancethrough peer observation system technology. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 6, 7–17.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: designing a continuum tostrengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

Fry, J. M., & Hin, M. K. T. (2006). Peer coaching with interactive wireless technologybetween student teachers: satisfaction with role and communication. Interac-tive Learning Environments, 14(3), 193–204.

Gemmell, J. C. (2003). Building a professional learning community in preserviceteacher education: peer coaching and video analysis. Unpublished Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). SuperVision andinstructional leadership: A developmental approach (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pear-son Education, Inc.

Goker, S. D. (Writer) (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instruc-tional skills in TEFL teacher education [Article], System.

Hasbrouck, J. E. (1997). Mediated peer coaching for training preservice teachers. TheJournal of Special Education, 31(2), 251–271.

Henry, M. A., & Beasley, W. W. (1996). Supervising student teachers: The professionalway (5th ed.). Terre Haute, Indiana: Sycamore Press.

Jenkins, J. M., Hamrick, C., & Todorovich, J. (2002). Peer coaching: implementationand data collection tools. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,73(4), 47–53.

Jenkins, J. M., & Veal, M. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ PCK development duringpeer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 49–68.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (February 1980). Improving inservice training: the messagesof research. Educational Leadership 379–385.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership,40(1), 4–10.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1987). Low-cost arrangements for peer-coaching. Journal ofStaff Development, 8(1), 22–24.

Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of student teachers: practices of cooperating teachersprepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,16(3), 228–244.

Kurtts, S. A., & Levin, B. B. (2000). Using peer coaching with preservice teachers todevelop reflective practice and collegial support. Teaching Education, 11(3),297–310.

Leggett, D., & Hoyle, S. (1987). Peer coaching: one district’s experience in usingteachers as staff developers. Journal of Staff Development, 1987(8), 1.

Lu, H. -L. (2005). A public Montessori school as a student teaching site. Paper pre-sented at the New England Education Research Conference, Northampton, MA.

Lu, H. -L. (2007). Mentor teachers, program supervisors, and peer coaching in thestudent teaching experience: A phenomenological study of the experience ofmentor teachers, program supervisors, and interns. Unpublished Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lu, H. -L. (2009). Joint effects of peer coaching and the student teaching triad:perceptions of student teachers. Southeastern Teacher Education Journal, 2(2),7–18.

Mallette, B., Mabeady, L., & Harper, G. F. (1999). The effects of reciprocal peercoaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with speciallearning needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 201–216.

McAllister, E. A., & Neubert, G. A. (1995). New teachers helping new teachers:Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,English, and Communication.

Morgan, R. L., Gustafson, K. J., Hudson, P. J., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Peer coaching ina preservice special education program. Teacher Education and Special Education,15(4), 10.

Morgan, R. L., & Menlove, R. (1994). Effects of peer coaching on the acquisition ofdirect instruction skills by low-performing. Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 59.

Morgan, R. L., Menlove, R., Salzberg, C. L., & Hudson, P. (1994). Effects of peercoaching on the acquisition of direct instruction skills by low-performingpreservice teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 18.

Neubert, C. A., & McAllister, E. (Fall 1993). Peer coaching in preservice education.Teacher Education Quarterly 77–84.

Neubert, G. A., & Stover, L. T. (1994). Peer coaching in teacher education. Fastback371. Phi Delta Kappa 39.

Ovens, A. (2004). Using peer coaching and action research to structure the prac-ticum: an analysis of student teacher perceptions. Journal of Physical EducationNew Zealand, 37(1), 45–60.

Pavelich, B. (1992). Peer coaching within the internship. Saskatchewan, Canada:Saskatchewan University, Saskatoon College of Education.

Pierce, T., & Miller, S. P. (1994). Using peer coaching in preservice practica. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 17(4), 215–223.

Slater, C. L., & Simmons, D. L. (2001). The design and implementation of a peercoaching program. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 67–76.

Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. ERIC DIGEST.Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education,AACTE.