See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344354339

A Review of Coaching and Mentoring Theories and Models

Article in International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development · June 2020
DOI: 10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i2/7302

CITATIONS READS
13 23,985

4 authors, including:

Mastura Kamarudin Ramiaida Darmi

USIM | Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia USIM | Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
4 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 185 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramiaida Darmi on 23 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

A Review of Coaching and Mentoring Theories and Models

Mastura binti Kamarudin, Azni Yati binti Kamarudin, Ramiaida binti Darmi,
Noor Saazai binti Mat Saad
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i2/7302 DOI:10.6007/IJARPED/v9-i2/7302

Received: 21 March 2020, Revised: 27 April 2020, Accepted: 10 May 2020

Published Online: 18 June 2020

In-Text Citation: (Kamarudin et al., 2020)

To Cite this Article: Kamarudin, M. binti, Kamarudin, A. Y. binti, Darmi, R. binti, & Saad, N. S. binti M. (2020). A
Review of Coaching and Mentoring Theories and Models. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development, 9(2), 289–298.

Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s)

Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Vol. 9(2) 2020, Pg. 289 - 298

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARPED JOURNAL HOMEPAGE

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics

289
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

A Review of Coaching and Mentoring Theories and

Models
Mastura binti Kamarudin
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia

Azni Yati binti Kamarudin

University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Ramiaida binti Darmi, Noor Saazai binti Mat Saad

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, 71800, Negeri Sembilan Malaysia,Malaysia

Abstract
This paper encapsulates the theories and models within the coaching and mentoring process.
Three major theories and models are discussed and relate to the coaching and mentoring
situation: Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Biggs’s Presage-Process-Product Model and The
GROW Model. These models play a significant role in coaching and mentoring whereby both
involve in the process to maximise the potential of the clients or coaches. A series of meeting,
building rapport and rightly questioning and answering techniques could build up the best of
coaches and clients. At the same time, the mentors must be able to model the action they want
their mentee to adopt. Thus, these theories and models should be fully understood and applied
by mentors and mentees to increase their quality.
Keywords: Coaching, Mentoring, Clients, Theories, Potential.

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to explore into, and understand, theories and models within the
coaching process. The researcher reviewed theories and models related to coaching and
mentoring in order to lay a more or less solid foundation upon which coaching and mentoring
can be based. Then, the validation of theory and models is established and their contribution to
the issue of coaching and mentoring analysed. The review of these theories and models are
essential because it helps to unveil a deep concern for the coaching and mentoring relationship.
There are two theories and one model that have become the mainstay of this study. They are
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Biggs’s Presage-Process-Product Model and The GROW
Model. They are to be discussed in order.

290
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

Coaching
Basically, coaching is a central component of successful professional development. According to
Whitmore (2002), coaching refers to unlocking a person’s potential to maximise their own
performance. Du Toit and Reissner (2012) posited that coaching is the ability to increase and
improve the sensitivity and awareness that the client has within himself or herself, and for others.
To develop self-awareness, an individual must have access to honest feedback and this is
sometimes difficult to obtain within the organisation, particularly if the client is in a senior
position within the organisation. Coaching is an enabling process aiming at enhancing learning
and development with the intention of improving the performance in a specific aspect of practice
(Lord et al. 2008). Coaching is the main component of a successful professional development that
will become a form of support to reveal a person’s potential to maximise their own performance.
Coaching offers support for the learners' ability to transfer their learning to succeed in complex
and independent performances. According to Lord et al. (2008), coaching is an enabling process
that aims at enhancing learning and development with the intention of improving the
performance in a specific aspect of the practice (Lord et al., 2008). Therefore, in this study
coaching is defined as the ability of a coach to offer additional professional support in helping the
coachees to exploit and increase their performance in certain subjects, namely Mathematics,
Bahasa Melayu and English Language. The emphasis will be on continuous collaboration, support
for lesson planning and teacher placement so that the 21 st century teaching and learning in the
classroom can become the focal point of their teaching.

Mentoring
Mentoring refers to a process of serving as a mentor, or someone who facilitates and assists
another person’s development. The process of mentoring includes modelling because the
mentor must be able to model the messages and suggestions being taught to the beginning
teacher (Gay, 1995). With regard to this study, mentoring is a process where the SISC+ or the
coaches demonstrate a range of cognitive coaching competencies, such as posing carefully
constructed questions to stimulate reflection, paraphrasing, and using data to improve teaching
and learning. Ganser (2006) stated that mentoring was a tool which had remained very
significant in improving management skills and staff development. Hence, mentoring is a dynamic
relationship that leads to the creativity, professional growth and mastery over problem-solving
techniques. Nonaka and Nishiguchi (2001) mentioned that workplace relationships such as
mentoring should be fostered to encourage the transfer of implied knowledge. The nature of
mentoring is a collaborative and mutually beneficial approach between mentor and mentee, as
Lim (2005) revealed. Thus, mentoring is a factor that promotes guidance on career development
and role modelling where both contribute significantly to employee’s development. Scandura,
Gavin and Williams (2009), emphasised that mentoring relationships can significantly affect
individual career development and advancement with both the mentor and the mentee
benefiting from the relationship.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Scaffolding

Vygotsky’s description of the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), is the distance between
what an individual can achieve individually and what he or she is capable of accomplishing with

291
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

more expert assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). It is vital to note, however, that the term was never
used by Vygotsky in his writing, but it was introduced by Wood & Wood (1996). Cole & Cole
(2001) point out that the term specifies that the support provided goes just slightly beyond the
learner’s present competence complementing their existing abilities. The key point of the
concept developed by Vygotsky refers to the difference between a learner’s ability to perform a
task independently and guidance.
The theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) has deliberated by Vygotsky. A ZPD can be
created for any field of skill. This concept has a significant contribution to the field of education
and is used in developing age-appropriate curriculum and teaching techniques. In the education
domain, teaching and learning occur when help is offered at points in the ZPD, at which
performance requires help. The assistance is provided by the teacher, the expert, or a more
capable person in giving help or assistance. Consequently, teaching consists of assisting
performance through the ZPD.
As pointed out by Rasmussen (2001), ZPD is a form of support for the development and learning
of children and young people. Jacobs (2001) describes ZPD as the way teachers or peers supply
students with the tools they need in order to learn. Under the concept of ZPD mentioned by
Vygotsky (1978), individuals learn best when working together with others during collaboration,
and it is through such collaborative endeavours with more skilled persons that learners learn and
internalise new concepts, psychological tools, and skills.
The term ‘scaffolding’ as applied to the concept of learning was introduced by Wood, Bruner, and
Ross (1976) in their attempt to demonstrate the concept of teaching in the zone of proximal
development (ZPD). Researchers believed that the socio-cultural theory of the mind and the
concept of ZPD form the basis of the notion of scaffolding (Berk, 2002; Daniels, 2001; Wells,
1999). Nevertheless, there is a distinct understanding and explanation of the differences
between ZPD and scaffolding. Wells (1999) definition of scaffolding is a way of operationalising
Vygotsky's (1987) concept of working in the zone of proximal development. He introduced three
critical features of educational scaffolding. The first is the essentially dialogic nature of the
discourse in which knowledge is co-constructed; secondly is the implication of the activity in
which knowledge is embedded. Finally, there is the role of artefacts that mediate knowing (Wells,
1999). The primary goal of scaffolding in teaching represents the view on the ZPD characteristics
concerning the transfer of task responsibility to the student (Mercer & Fisher, 1993). They
highlight the collaboration between the teacher and the learner in constructing knowledge and
skills. With the benefit of scaffolding, after the student has mastered the specific aspect, the task
removes the scaffolding to enable the student to try to complete the task again on his own. Once
learners have demonstrated their task mastery, the support is decreased, and learners gain
responsibility for their growth. A central aspect of scaffolding is related to what Wood, Wood,
and Middleton (1978) referred to as the conditional change principle. The principle lies in two
folds to "increase control when students fail, and decrease control when students succeed" (Van
de Pol & Elbers, 2013: 33). In this context, the scaffolds act as support to the learner's
development. In recent years, scaffolding has been adopted and interpreted in numerous ways
to describe all types of support and guidance (Boblett, 2012). Viewed from this perspective,
scaffolding is seen both as supportive and liberating (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). ZPD holds two
related aspects- mediation and scaffolding. When a coach guides his or her coachee, both

292
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

mediation and scaffolding are present. The coach is the mediator while coaching is scaffolding.
The idea of a mediator is rather direct, but scaffolding involves some descriptions. In an analysis
of scaffolding, Mamour (2008) described that scaffolding is an instructional structure in which
the teacher models the desired learning strategy then slowly changes responsibility to the
students.
Coaching and scaffolding are two critical components that are addressed together because of
similar features. Scaffolding can be categorised as a type of coaching based on the similarities
(Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991). Based on these realities, this learning theory concerning
coaching and mentoring in the education industry is essential to be discussed because as SISC+
their duty is to provide the support needed by their coachees.

Biggs’s Presage-Process-Product Model

Learning is a dynamic process involving learners, learning, and teachers. The awareness of the
relationships of the factors that influence learning allows teachers to develop the learning
environment that facilitates the learners’ efficient learning. Thus, the opportunity to learn is a
complex dynamic system that seeks for balance. Biggs’s (1996) Presage-Process-Product, or 3P,
model was developed to express the interactions between lecturers and students from the
opinions of the expectations that both would have regarding the teaching and learning process.
The 3Ps model describes 3 points in time at which learning-related factors are placed. This model
refers to individual states of being, that foreshadow the educational process. The first stage in
Biggs model is the presage stage, which is before the learning takes place while the process
means during the learning, and finally, the product is the outcome of the learning. At the
individual level, it describes the worldview of each participant in the classroom. According to
Prosser and Trigwell (1998), students’ approaches to learning are a function of their prior
experiences in teaching and learning environments while Ramsden (2003), indicates that a
student’s approach to study would be influenced by their previous experiences.
In coaching and mentoring, the presage stage describes the prior knowledge, abilities, and skills
of the coachee, to learn new knowledge which may or may not impact their learning processes
and outcomes. This stage is simultaneously affected by the process and product. Following the
Presage stage in the 3P model is the Process stage. In this stage, it refers to the way that coachees
characteristics come into play in response to the tasks set by coaches. Process stage referred to
how coachees handle the task, and it was determined by their observations towards the coaching
context, their motives, and tendencies and their decisions for instant action, all of which include
their approach to the learning task. Finally, the Process stage leads to the Product stage of
coachees’ learning and at this stage, it describes low- and high-level cognitive results that are
encompassing from quantitative recall in the case of low-level outcomes, to relevant answers.
This model has provided help to explore the nature of educational opportunities intended to
encourage collaborative working because it represents a closed system that can be described as
learning processes in any country with students from similar or different cultural, language and
educational backgrounds (Biggs, 1996). The nature of the collaborative practice that positively
motivates and engages coachees by their respective learning styles, therefore, leads to the
framework of this study. This model is essential to describe the contribution of different stages

293
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

in the changes of coachees levels of knowledge skills and abilities after being coached by their
respected coaches.

FIGURE 1: Adaptation of Biggs 3Ps Model and Vygotsky Scaffolding

The GROW Model

One of the more popular coaching models, The GROW model, has gained its popularity since its
induction in the 1980s. It was advanced by Alan Fine, Graham Alexander and Sir John Whitmore
during the 1980s (Whitmore, 1992). There are also various models and theories of the
contribution of coaching to personal improvement. However, while in theory, it is clear what
should be done for effective coaching to take place, there is very little research on the
effectiveness of coaching (Theeboom et al. 2014).
Mukherjee (2014) stressed that the GROW model is a proven performance coaching
instrument that is employed by most companies whenever they dealt with performance issues.
According to her, the model’s principle behind the GROW model is rooted in the Inner Game
theory developed by Timothy Galleway, who was frustrated with the weaknesses of conventional
coaching methods in sports (Mukherjee, 2014). In his argument, Galleway said just by witnessing
a player’s faults and bringing them to his or her attention, does not bring the desired results nor
lasting change because people do not keep advice or instructions in their minds for a long time
(Parsloe and Leedham, 2016 ). The problem with the instruction is that a player will be able to
follow it for a short while but he or she may be unable to keep it in mind in the long term.
Galleway realised that, a coach must guide the coachee to reduce internal impairments to
performance and this will then result in the flow of natural ability to perform without the coach’s
input (Mukherjee, 2014). The players result started to improve because the managers, in their
role as coaches, help the players through the instructions given so they can gain better access to
their own internal resources. Through the knowledge that he gained, he discovered that learning
is about learning how to learn, and learning how to think differently. Sir John Whitmore was a
student of Galleway, and he then collaborated with Graham Alexander and Alan Fine to develop
the GROW model during the early 1980s (Western, 2012). Whitmore’s (1992) definition of
coaching, which is the process of unlocking an individual’s potential to maximise their own

294
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

performance is based on Galleway’s views. The structure of the GROW coaching model is shown
in the diagram below.

Way
Option Forward
Reality

Grow

Figure 1. The GROW Model

According to Whitmore (2009), The GROW model helps to solve problems and achieve goals
because it is a solution-focused model. There are four stages in the model, which require the
coach to captivate the coachee’s interest. Each of the four distinct stages was represented by a
simple question, or a series of questions to help develop people and discover their potential. It is
an ideal model for setting goals, solving problems, preserving personal achievement, and
efficiency (Leedham & Parsloe, 2016).
Firstly, the coach and the coachee needs to establish the goals of the coaching because it is
compulsory to know the goal only then both of them can work towards their goals. According to
Whitmore (2009), setting goals before exploring into reality helps to develop goals which are not
influenced by an individual’s current situation. At the same time, the goals must be SMART:
Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic and Timely (Bianco-Mathis et al. 2002). The main
question to be addressed when setting goals is whether or not they fit the overall objectives. It
is essential to set a goal that is clear and specific. Starr (2016) argues that the idea of setting
goals is strongly related to the goal-setting theory, which advocates the setting of clear, specific
and challenging goals as this leads to clear direction and motivation.
The second stage is the reality in which the coachee will explain the current reality and what is
wrong to help them to see why change is necessary (Weinstein, 2013). It is essential for both the
parties to know the current situation because the argument is that it is difficult for them to solve
the problem if they do not have a clear picture of the anticipated destination (Whitworth et al.
2007). According to Bridges and Bridges (2017), people cannot solve problems they do not
understand or reach goals without considering the starting point. It is vital for the coach and the
coachee to keep focus and become aware of the situation. As a coach, the crucial role is to
stimulate coachees’ self-evaluation and identify the obstacles that have been holding them back.
This is the crucial part where the coaches need to summarise and repeat what he or she
understands with regard to the actual situation of the coachee. At this phase, it often reveals the
fundamental fears and beliefs that can be worked on during or in-between coaching sessions.
The option stage is to generate ideas that can contribute to the solution of the problem. It
involves exploring into various options and focusing not only on the right answers but on several
alternatives to have as many options as possible so that specific action steps can be selected

295
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

(Dembkowski & Eldridge, 2003). The solutions need to be structured, and then every option
needs to be evaluated by creatively brainstorming the process. A coach has to create an
environment in which the coachee feels safe to express his or her ideas and thoughts without
fear of being judged.
The last step of the GROW coaching model is the choice of one option from the various options
stated. Then, the choice is transformed into a more concrete plan. After a well-planned strategy,
the coachee’s motivation to follow this plan is maximised. The last phase involves converting the
discussions into decisions by means of taking specific actions to move forward (Lesley et al. 2015).
This is in accordance with the opinion that in coaching, the coach should help individuals to move
from their current positions towards greater effectiveness and fulfilment (Lesley et al. 2015). The
assumption is that, if questions in each stage are properly dealt with, obstacles that may
negatively impact the individual’s performance will be reduced (de Haan & Kasozi, 2015).
As a coach, one of the most critical roles is to guide the coachee to improve their performance
by helping them to make better decisions, solve problems that are holding them back. Coach also
helps the coachee to acquire new skills and doing things differently, and subsequently, they can
progress their careers. The GROW model is grounded on the belief that individuals have the most
appropriate solutions to their problems while the coach, on the other hand, will succeed with
some proven techniques, practice, and even instincts (Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009).

Conclusion
In conclusion, theories and models are important aspects in coaching and mentoring
relationship. In encapsulation, the review on the theories/model on coaching and mentoring
aims at highlighting all the relevant tenets and notions that underpin coaching and mentoring
situation. The information of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) derived from Vygotsky theory
and scaffolding, which provides the ground to this study is central to the chapter. The information
gained from the theory is essential to this study since this research is grounded with the learning
theory derived from Vygotsky. Likewise, The GROW model developed by Sir John Whitmore,
Graham Alexander and Alan Fine, who was a student of Galleway, were also included. The model
is significant because it is the foreground work of the coaching and mentoring process.

Acknowledgement
We thank our colleagues from Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia who provided insight and expertise
that greatly assisted the study, although they may not agree with all of the
interpretations/conclusions of this paper.

Corresponding Author
Mastura Kamarudin
Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Tampin
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
Malaysia
Email: masmiera@yahoo.com
NO 2632 Jalan BSS 3/1C Bandar Seremban Selatan 71450 Sg Gadut NSDK

296
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

References
Berk, L. (2002). Child Development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bianco-Mathis, V. E., Nabors, L. K., & Roman, C. H. (2002). Leading from the inside out: A
coaching model. California: Sage.
Biggs, J. (1996). Approaches to learning of asian students: A multiple. Asian Contributions to
cross-cultural psychology, 4, 180.
Boblett, N. (2012). Scaffolding: Defining the metaphor. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL,
12(2), 1-16.
Cole, M., & Cole, S. (2001). The development of children (4th ed.). New York: Scientific American
Books.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: MAking thinking visible.
American Educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygoysky & pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
de Haan, E., & Kasozi, A. (2015). Coaching leaders through crises. In L. Hall, Coaching in times of
crisis & transformation (pp. 144-171). London: Kogan Page.
Dembkowski, S., & Eldridge, F. (2003). Beyond GROW: A new coaching model. The international
journal of mentoring and coaching, 1(1), 21.
Du Toit, A., & Reissner, S. (2012). Experiences of coachig in team leading. International journal
of mentoring and coaching in education, 1(3), 177-190.
Ganser, T. (2006). A status report on teacher mentoring programmes in the United States.
Mentoring in education: An interntional perspective, 33-55.
Gay, G. (1995). Modelling and Mentoring in Urban Education. Education and urban society,
28(1), 103-118.
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study. The journal of
positive psychology, 4(5), 396-407.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding
in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.
Jacobs, G. (2001). Providing the scaffold: A model for early childhood/primary teacher
preparation. Early childhood education Journal, 29(2), 125-130.
Leedham, M., & Parsloe, E. (2017). Coaching and mentoring: Practical techniques for developing
learning and performance. London: Kogan Page.
Lim, L. H. (2005). Leadership mentoring in education - The Singapore practice. Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish Academic.
Lord, P., Atkinson, M., & Mitchell, H. (2008). Mentoring and coaching for professionals: A study
of the research evidence. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Ludvigsson, J. F. (2003). Ramsden on learning to teach in higher education. Journal of pediatric
gastroenterology and nutrition, 36(4), 511-512.
Mamour, C. T. (2008). The relevance and implication of Vygotsky's sociocultural theory in the
second language classroom. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language
Sciences, 5, 244-262.
Mukherjee, S. (2014). Corporate coaching: The essential guide. New Delhi: SAGE Publications
India.

297
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 9 , No. 2, 2020, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2020 HRMARS

Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary
dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Rasmussen, J. (2001). The importance of communication in teaching: A systems-theory
approach to the scaffolding methaphor. Journal of curriculum studies, 33(5), 569-582.
Scandura, C. A., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, E. A. (2009). Understanding team-level career
mentoring by leaders and its effects on team-source learning: The effects of intra-group
processes. Human relations, 124-147.
Starr, R. L. (2016). Sociolinguistic variation and acquisition in two-way language immersion:
Negotiating the standard. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on
the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The
journal of positive psychology, 9(1), 1-18.
Van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-
student interaction. Learning, culture and social interaction, 2(1), 32-41.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
London: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, N., Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). A multi-method examination of the effects of
mindfulness on stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. Journal of research
personality, 43(3), 374-385.
Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance: A practical guide to growing your own skills.
London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, K., Kimsey-House, H., & Sandahl, P. (2007). Co-active coaching:
New skills for coaching people toward success in work and life (2nd ed.). California:
Davies-Black Publishing.
Wood, D. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford review of education, 22(1), 5-16.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child
psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face
teaching strategies. International journal of behavioral development, 1, 131-140.

298

View publication stats