Dialogue: The heartbeat of instructional coaching

Instructional coaching has exploded in England over the last few years and now many schools are implementing some iteration of coaching as a lever of professional development. And why wouldn’t they? A 2018 meta-analysis of 60 studies showed that instructional coaching has large positive effects on both instructional practice and student achievement: The study stated that ‘The quality of teachers’ instruction improves by as much as—or more than—the difference in effectiveness between a novice and a teacher with five to 10 years of experience.’ This effect was stronger than that of traditional PD and most other school-based interventions.

A lot of schools I go into are using the ‘Praise, Probe’ model, outlined in Bambrick-Santoyo’s ‘Leverage Leadership’ book. I think this is a nice, simple model to use and when I was leading mentoring in ITT, this was the model I also trained our mentors on. Like any model it can be a great scaffold if used by highly skilled, well trained coaches. If not, it becomes a straight jacket rather than a scaffold and can be prone to lethal mutations. One of the biggest lethal mutations I see of this model is that it becomes a checklist to be worked through as quickly as possible, which inevitably means that coaches/mentors just talk at their coachee/mentee for 15 minutes. All the teacher being coached can do is to nod or make the occasional noise to show that they are listening. As such, the conversation is not a coaching one, it becomes a monologue, reminiscent of one of my favourite scenes from Ferris Bueller…

There are many, many reasons why this is problematic.

Firstly, when a coach just talks at the coachee, they fail to create a safe space for open dialogue and exploration. This hinders the coachee's ability to reflect and learn. When the coach does all the talking, the coachee doesn't have the opportunity to process information, ask clarifying questions, or connect it to their own experiences. This can result in superficial understanding and limited application of learned concepts - what I sometimes refer to as drowning in ‘technique soup.’

We know that a good coaching relationship involves active listening, asking powerful questions and providing tailored feedback. A coach who just talks doesn't leverage these crucial elements misses opportunities to help the coachee identify their strengths, challenges and decision making. Of course, this can then be demotivating and discouraging. This is not to say of course, that coaches should never tell teachers what to do. Some will disagree with me, but I am all for this when needed. Yet, at their heart, coaching conversations are the joyful chance to discuss our craft and if there is no space for that, I am not sure what we are even doing. I agree with what Tom Sherrington says here:

Yet, due to time constraints and misapplication of coaching frameworks, we are too often overlooking one of the most transformative tools in our arsenal: dialogue. At the heart of instructional coaching lies the simple yet profound act of talking and listening. Dialogue isn't just a means of exchanging ideas; it is the engine of professional growth, a catalyst for clarity, reflection and action.

Why dialogue matters - it isn’t fluffy

Dialogue in coaching is not just about having a nice chat. It’s how teachers think aloud, make sense of their practice and strengthen their decision-making abilities. As Vygotsky argued, learning is socially constructed. Language is not peripheral to thinking; it is central to it. In coaching, this means that talk builds thinking. Teachers often come to understand their own actions more deeply through conversation with a coach.

Jim Knight (2007, 2011) talks about this a lot and often highlights how reflective dialogue allows teachers to reframe practice and explore new approaches:

“When teachers talk through their thinking, they gain clarity, and with clarity comes confidence and better decisions.”

It isn’t fluffy stuff. It isn’t bean bags and tea and tissues. It is however, about belonging and psychological safety. Two things we really need in teaching right now. It is deeply underpinned by cognitive science principles, particularly those concerning how teachers build and refine mental models, make decisions under pressure and consolidate learning.

Dialogue as a tool for surfacing mental models

Mental models are internal representations that guide how individuals interpret and respond to situations (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Through dialogue, coaches help teachers make their implicit reasoning explicit. When a coach asks, “What were you hoping students would learn at that moment?” they invite teachers to articulate their mental model, what they believe about learning, students and instruction. These reflective conversations make visible the assumptions behind classroom choices, which is the first step in refining expertise (Collins & Kapur, 2014).

Dialogue supports schema construction and refinement

Experts organise knowledge into schemas, interconnected concepts that reduce cognitive load and support rapid decision-making (Sweller, 2011). Dialogic reflection helps teachers connect experiences to principles, strengthening and refining these schemas. For example, unpacking a student misconception during coaching builds the teacher’s schema for diagnosing errors and adapting instruction.

Promotes metacognition and self-regulation

Metacognition allows teachers to monitor and regulate their thinking and is key to effective learning (Flavell, 1979; Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009). Dialogic coaching done well models metacognition. Coaches prompt teachers to reflect, predict, plan, and evaluate - all key self-regulatory behaviours. Questions like “What might you try differently next time?” or “How will you know if students are learning?” cultivate metacognitive habits.

Dialogue strengthens retrieval and transfer

Retrieval practice and elaboration improve retention and transfer (Agarwal & Bain, 2019). Therefore, when teachers talk through lesson choices and reflect on outcomes, they engage in elaborative retrieval, reprocessing teaching experiences to draw deeper meaning and prepare for future application. Coaching also builds transfer-ready knowledge, helping teachers apply principles flexibly across contexts (Bransford et al., 2000).

Dialogue enables calibration and error detection

Feedback loops improve performance by helping learners calibrate their understanding and detect errors (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Dialogue offers non-evaluative, informative feedback, where coaches help teachers spot discrepancies between intention and impact and adjust their practice accordingly. This deepens teachers’ capacity for diagnostic reasoning, a hallmark of adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986).

Lofthouse and Hall (2013) also introduced the idea of the coaching dialogic space—a professional environment characterised by trust, openness and curiosity. Within this space, teachers can test ideas, process emotions and take professional risks. It’s not just about critique but it’s about exploration without fear of judgment.

This safe space is where the magic happens. It allows for mental model surfacing, schema refinement and metacognitive engagement, all processes we know are essential for deep learning and improved practice.

Finally, attention also fuels thinking. Nancy Kline's Thinking Environment (2009) reinforces the centrality of high-quality attention. She argues that the quality of someone’s thinking improves with the quality of attention they receive. In a coaching relationship, giving a teacher space to speak, and truly listening, can significantly enhance their decision-making and confidence.

Dialogue as a developmental driver

So for me, effective coaching uses dialogue not merely as a communication tool, but as a learning method. It strengthens retrieval, supports transfer, enables error detection and promotes self-regulation. It’s how we learn from success, not just failure.

Take, for instance, the ‘Praise–Probe’ model. A coach might say,

“You used cold call really effectively—what made you choose that moment? What impact did it have?”
This kind of probing helps teachers connect actions to principles, refining their decision-making.

Bringing dialogue to life

So how can schools foster better coaching dialogue?

Use Scenarios

Pose real-world decision points using video. You could use a clip like this one:

Then pause the clip and pose decision questions at different points:

• What would you do next and why?

• What are the risks of each option?

• What principles or goals would guide you here?

Ask “What would you do next? Why?”

Try Approximations

Approximations are low-stakes rehearsals or simulations of key teaching interactions, such as giving feedback, addressing a behaviour issue or leading a discussion. These are not full lessons but focused slices of practice. They strengthen muscle memory for high-leverage moves and bridge the gap between knowing what to do and doing it fluently. Again, video clips are a great stimulus for this. I particularly like this clip of a maths teacher and I would ask the coachee to imagine that they were the teacher and to rehearse how they might improve their questioning, with me playing the student. Afterwards, you can ask, “How did it feel saying that out loud? What might you tweak?”

The goal is to move away from coaching just being correction, and toward coaching as co-construction - a shared journey through dialogue where insight, reflection and action emerge together.

Instructional coaching rooted in rich dialogue does more than improve teaching, it transforms it. It allows teachers to see their own work anew, articulate their decisions and continuously refine their craft. So the next time we think about improving teaching, let’s start with a conversation, because when we talk, we think. When we think better, we teach better.