So, my last post, I talked about coaching, mostly domain-specific coaching. As I said then, I am thinking about ‘bridging’, crossing the chasm from instruction to application. It’s a chasm because we tend to not do anything post-instruction. Yet, we also know that what’s taught can dissipate quickly if we don’t reinforce. One of the debates has been around domain-specific and domain-independent coaching, and that prompts some further thoughts.
So, what I’ve heard is that coaching is, or at least can be, about guiding the learner to improve. The whole business model of a colleague’s coaching organization was to not match coaches to learning goals, but to deliberately steer away from any domain knowledge. Instead, the learner was asked what barriers were being faced, what could be done, where more knowledge could be found, making plans to take action, and monitoring the plan. Which is all good, to be clear. However, one things strikes me.
What that coaching is doing is supporting the learner in learning. And that’s not a bad thing, but what strikes me is that this is something learners could learn! We (can) do this in other areas. For instance, we can tell learners how to take better notes. Shute & Bonar built a tutor talking about good experimentation strategies. Kate Bielaczyc took Micki Chi’s results on self-explanation and found improvement through training. My own PhD thesis found improvement by instruction on analogical reasoning.
The sad fact is that we don’t teach learners how to be good at learning. Whether K12, higher ed, pr organizations, it’s just not there. I remember my child’s teacher talking about her approach – draft, feedback, revise – and me mentioning that it’d apply to other classes than writing: math, science, … She was amazed (and that’s what worried me)! Some folks say we can’t teach meta-learning except on a domain, but my take is that we could teach meta-learning across domains. And should.
So, I wonder about coaching where the coach is helping you not only do better, but also learn to do better on your own. Now, that’s not necessarily a good business model (if you wean people off your own services), but it’s the right thing to do. We should be doing it K12 and higher ed, so that it’s already there for people to be better able to improve. In lieu, we could (and should?) do it ourselves. As my late colleague Jay Cross used to opine, it could be the best investment an org could make. Let me extend that to a society. Imagine if everyone was an effective learner! Can we make it happen?
This really resonated with me, especially the distinction between coaching someone through a problem versus coaching someone how to learn and adapt independently. Too often in workplace learning, coaching becomes transactional — focused on fixing today’s performance gap — instead of developmental in a way that builds long-term capability.
I also think you’re spot on about the lack of explicit instruction around how to learn. We spend so much time teaching content, processes, and compliance, but very little time helping people build the skills of reflection, experimentation, self-assessment, feedback integration, and transfer across contexts. Those “meta” skills are often what separate high performers from everyone else.
The example of “draft, feedback, revise” is such a great illustration because that cycle applies almost everywhere — leadership, communication, problem-solving, coaching, even technical work. Yet many learners never recognize the pattern because we teach skills in silos instead of helping people see the underlying learning process.
I especially appreciate the idea that effective coaching should eventually reduce dependency on the coach. That may not always align with business incentives, but from a leadership and learning perspective, it’s the most ethical and impactful approach. The best coaches, teachers, and leaders don’t just provide answers — they help people develop the habits and thinking patterns to navigate future challenges on their own.
Honestly, this feels incredibly relevant right now in corporate learning and development. Organizations invest heavily in training events but often underinvest in the systems that help people continue learning after the event ends. Meta-coaching could be one of the missing bridges between knowledge acquisition and sustained behavior change.