Three moves for coaches and school leaders supporting teaching across content areas.
Your background is in literacy, but your next coaching conversation is with an algebra teacher. Or you are an assistant principal walking into Advanced Placement Chemistry, expected to offer meaningful feedback on content you have not studied in years. What can you contribute when you are not the subject-matter expert?
The answer is not to retreat to comments about classroom management. It is also not to pretend that general instructional knowledge can answer every content-specific question. You bring something important: the ability to gather evidence, ask thoughtful questions, facilitate reflection, and help identify the expertise needed for the next step.
That does not make content knowledge unimportant. Instructional coaching requires substantive knowledge of teaching and learning—not simply a collection of questions. Knight (2022) emphasizes the importance of coaches developing deep knowledge of the instructional practices they help teachers implement.
But having useful expertise is different from having every answer. Whether you are a coach supporting multiple departments or a school leader working across grade levels, your role is to help turn expertise into action—and keep the learning moving.
1. Make feedback specific enough to guide practice
“I loved your lesson” may communicate encouragement, but it does not tell a teacher which practice supported learning or what deserves another look. The same is true of broad judgments such as “That was a great discussion” or “The lesson did not go well.” Whether positive or negative, the judgment leaves the teacher to guess what to keep and what to adjust.
Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review distinguishes feedback about tasks, processes, and self-regulation from feedback directed at the person, such as general praise. Their review focuses primarily on feedback to learners, not coaching conversations with teachers. Still, it offers a useful principle to consider: approval alone provides little information about how to improve.
Being specific does not mean withholding encouragement or avoiding concerns. It means making the basis of your feedback visible.
Instead of “I loved your questioning,” try:
“When you asked students to compare their approaches and explain why each worked, several students revised their original explanations. That is a questioning move worth keeping.”
When something needs closer examination, use the same evidence-based approach:
“During the discussion, the same three students answered each question. I did not hear from the other students, so I could not tell how they were making sense of the concept. How could we gather evidence of their thinking next time?”
The goal is not to eliminate professional judgment. It is to move beyond personal approval or disapproval toward actionable feedback: name the practice, connect it to evidence, and clarify what to sustain or strengthen.
When the content is unfamiliar, be especially careful to distinguish observation from interpretation. City et al. (2009) direct attention to the instructional core—the relationship among teacher, student, and content—and the work students actually do. This lens provides a starting point for inquiry, not a substitute for disciplinary understanding.
You might ask:
“Several students arrived at the same answer but used different explanations. Help me understand what makes an explanation mathematically sound here.”
You are not avoiding the content. You are inviting the teacher’s expertise into the conversation.
2. Bring the right expertise into the conversation
You do not need to supply every instructional solution. You do need to recognize when additional expertise could help.
Sometimes you can contribute a strategy from your own instructional knowledge. Sometimes you need to examine the task and student work more closely with the teacher. Sometimes the next step is to involve a department chair, content specialist, or colleague with deeper disciplinary expertise.
The important move is to define the question before seeking the support. “Talk to someone in the math department” is a referral. A purposeful connection sounds different:
“You noticed that students can complete the procedure but struggle to explain their reasoning. Who could help us examine a few responses and consider what might move their thinking forward?”
The teacher remains an active partner. The additional expertise serves a specific learning need. Your contribution may be helping arrange time, facilitating the conversation, or making sure the group leaves with a manageable next step.
For administrators, this connection also requires clear boundaries. Knight (2013) emphasizes the importance of communicating what information coaches will and will not share with principals. Coordinating support should not quietly turn private coaching conversations into evaluation evidence.
The question is not, “Who can fix this teacher?”
It is, “What expertise would help us understand this learning need and respond more effectively?”
3. Keep the learning moving through follow-through
A useful conversation needs a return point.
“Let me know how it goes” leaves the next interaction uncertain. A more intentional close makes the plan visible:
“You’re going to try asking students to explain why their strategy works. What evidence would help us understand their thinking, and when should we reconnect?”
Before closing, clarify four things:
What will the teacher try?
What support will you provide?
What evidence will you revisit?
When will you reconnect?
Follow-through might involve a brief classroom visit, a few student responses, or a conversation about what the teacher noticed. Choose a format that fits the question. A short visit offers a glimpse—not a final determination that a practice is effective or sustained. Return ready to learn, not simply to confirm that a suggestion was implemented.
Ask what changed, what remains difficult, and what should happen next. If the response did not help, revisit the idea together rather than treating implementation as the end of the work.
Three things you can do right now
Replace one general comment with specific feedback.
Choose a recent observation. Name what students said, wrote, or did. Identify a practice worth sustaining or ask a question about something that needs closer examination.Make one purposeful connection.
Identify an instructional question with a teacher that would benefit from additional expertise. Help clarify the focus and arrange the support—not simply the meeting.Schedule one return point.
Before ending your next conversation, confirm the action, the support, and the evidence you will revisit. Put the follow-up on the calendar while you are together.
You do not have to know every answer to contribute meaningfully to instructional improvement. You do need to bring useful knowledge, recognize its limits, and help turn evidence into informed action.
That is instructional leadership—not because you hold all the expertise, but because you help expertise make a difference.
References
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Knight, J. (2013, May 17). Should instructional coaching be confidential? Instructional Coaching Group. https://www.instructionalcoaching.com/should-instructional-coaching-be-confidential/
Knight, J. (2022). The definitive guide to instructional coaching: Seven factors for success. ASCD.