The paper will analyse the contribution of a training program based on group coaching to the professional development of educational leaders. The program involved small groups of experienced principals in the analysis of their practice by means of specific feedback and a highly structured learning sequence. It is the improved second version of a former program designed and piloted by an international consortium of 13 research groups –the one of the paper authors included- supported by a Multilateral Comenius Project from the EU.

A total of 94 principals with varied backgrounds and leadership profiles participated in the study of the program impact. They were organized in groups initially composed by 6 participants plus a coach –an experienced principal as well. Participants fulfilled a satisfaction questionnaire and the program sessions were video-recorded and analysed by means of a category system designed ad hoc. Results show that groups succeeded very differently in terms of achieving a deep understanding of their members’ leadership practice and providing useful suggestion of improvement. Conclusions about the factors that influenced these levels of performing are provided and its consequences for the design of future training tools for principals’ professional development based in the analysis of their practice are discussed.

The greatest consensus regarding school leadership preparation is actually build on the idea that traditional perspectives based on transmissive strategies are not enough and the new programs must be learning instead teaching focused (Schleicher, 2012; Walker, Bryant y Lee, 2013). This put leadership practice at the very centre of the training programs (Nicastro, 2014) which demands, according to Piggot-Irvine y Youngs (2011), participants’ reflection about specific situations and collaboration among leaders in order to share and analyse best practices.

Consequently, emphasis on teamwork is an essential component of the new perspectives (Van Knippenberg y Schippers, 2007), as most of the major problems faced by principals need collegiality and a wide spam of social skills. Moreover, group training and coaching relief the isolation feelings that many principals report (Walker, Bryant y Lee, 2013), as peer supporting enhance safety feelings (Moreno, Quesada y Pineda, 2010) and provide motivation for continuous professional development (Schleicher, 2012).

Our training program took on a group-coaching format. It is just recently when coaching has begun to be used in school principals’ preparation, although the strategy already counts on a long trajectory in the industry and services organizations (Huff, Preston, y Goldring, 2013). Coaching puts the trainee in the centre, specifically its characteristics, professional practice and skills. It frequently includes the analysis and improvement of such practice and provide some kind of specific feedback (Forde, McMahon, Gronn y Martin, 2012).

Particularly group coaching is one of the coaching strategies that gained relevance in the last years. Its unique trait consist on the participants not only receive feedback from a specialized coach but also from the rest of coachees. According to Dyke (2014) it is about taken advantage of group interaction to provoke a deeper understanding from the participants about themselves as leaders and the multiple factors influencing their practice and decisions. Britton (2015) thinks this capacity become critical when participants have to analyse complex situations and problematic decisions made in culturally diverse settings.

EU funded project in which the first version of the training program was designed made a substantial contribution to the development of group-coaching applied to school principals’ preparation (Aas and Vavik, 2015; Aas and Flückiger, 2016). The second version which results are discussed here was developed under a new, locally funded project (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness) taken into account the lessons learned during and after the piloting of the first version.

The main aim of the program is to promote school leaders reflections about their practices and ultimately improve them. The 94 participants were organized in 14 groups distributed along the 8 Andalusian provinces with the support of the educational regional authorities. The program consisted of 7 face-to-face sessions that lasted three hours each, and a number of activities between sessions. Sessions focused on: setting the group and group climate; leadership competences workshop; school characteristics and school culture workshop; three case analysis sessions; and a final, follow-up session. Coaches received specific preparation to exert their role and to achieve the group to fulfil the learning sequence established by the program. Such learning sequence included the following stages: information gathering –by means of both diagnosis tools and participants’ questions; analysis; assessment of leaders’ behaviours and decisions; advice; and synthesis of lessons learned. A study was carried out in parallel to the training program. It aimed to assess its relevancy in terms of (a) participants’ satisfaction, and (b) the fitting of groups’ performance to the established goals and structure. Additionally, the study aimed to dig deeper into the dynamics of training groups in order to identify the key factors that facilitated and hinder reflexivity and collective learning. Mixed methods were used for data gathering and analysis purposes. The quantitative ones included questionnaires about: expectations and motivation at the beginning of the program; lessons learned after the session devoted to the case analysis presented by each participant; and a Likert scale type satisfaction questionnaire of 48 items after the last session of the program. However, this paper will focus on the qualitative methodology employed, which was based on the video-recording of most of the sessions. The analysis was carried out using MAXQDA-10 program and a category system designed ad hoc by the researchers. The system included 19 categories grouped into 3 dimensions: coach’s behaviours, participants’ behaviours, and development of the sessions. Qualitative data analysis will proceed into the two first categories (group and coach performance) focusing on the issues related to the development of the sessions that promoted changes in participants’ self-image as leaders and in their leadership behaviour.

The analysis of the coaching sessions revealed meaningful differences in the learning process carried out by the groups. According to such differences, groups were classified into three categories related to the degree of adjustment to the program structure: maximum, partial and minimum adjustment. For the purpose of this paper results from the six more representative groups will be depicted and discussed. Groups 05 and 07 stand out because their fitting to program targets and structure. Coaches of both groups proved to be very knowledgeable and committed with the suggested learning sequence. Formulating enough vertical questions helped the participants to think on their own actions regarding the problematic situation depicted. Besides, this allowed the participants to realise the weaknesses of their practices as leaders, and gathered relevant information on which basis the rest of the group could analyse such practice and eventually provide timely advices. Consequently these groups achieved deeper reflection processes that provoked insights in the participants and specific change proposals. On the contrary, 01 and 15 groups were quite less productive than the above in terms of reflexivity and learning achievement. A clearly more passive role from the coaches was identified as critical influence on that result. Their lack of commitment with the program structure led them to provide wrong directions to the participants. Only minimum changes in participants’ perceptions about their role as leaders were observed. Half way from the above categories, a partial fitting was identified in groups 02 and 16. Although coaches of these groups neither made enough efforts to accomplish planned structure, however, emergent leadership from some of the participants led the group to achieve certain insights and explicit learning. A deeper regard on the process experimented for the six groups will provide further details of the key factors that facilitate group-coaching process.

Aas, M. & Flückiger, B. (2016). The role of a group coach in the professional learning of school leaders. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2016.1143022 Aas, M. & Vavik, M. (2015). Group coaching: A new way of constructing leadership identity?, School Leadership & Management, 35 (3), 251-265.Dyke, P. R. V. (2014). Virtual group coaching: A curriculum for coaches and educators. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organisational Culture, 5(2), 72-86. Forde, C., McMahon, M., Gronn, P. & Martin, M. (2012). Being a leadership development coach: A multi-faceted role. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(1), 105-119. Huff, J., Preston, C. & Goldring, E. (2013). Implementation of a coaching program for school principals: Evaluating coaches’ strategies and the results. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 504-526. Moreno, M.V, Quesada, C. & Pineda, P. (2010). El grupo de trabajo como método innovador de formación del profesorado para potenciar la transferencia del aprendizaje. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 68(246), 281-296. Nicastro, S. (2014). La formación de los directores. Un modelo centrado en el análisis de las prácticas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 12(5), 119-133. Piggot‐Irvine, E. & Youngs, H. (2011). Aspiring principal development programme evaluation in New Zealand. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 513-541. Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. París: OECD Publishing. Thornton, C. (2010). Group and team coaching: The essential guide. Nueva York, NY: Routledge. Van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 Walker A., Bryant D.O. & Lee M. (2013). International patterns in principal preparation: Commonalities and variations in pre-service programmes. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(4), 405-434.