Pa ThaoGardner-Webb University

2013

Literacy Coaching:Roles and

Responsibilities

Committee Members

F. Dennis Triplett, Ph.D. (Dissertation Chair)

James N. Epps, Ph.D. (Committee Member)

Ronald I. Nanney, Ed.D. (Committee Member)

John S. Reynolds, Ed.D. (Committee Member)

Agenda

Overview: Historical Background

Overview: Evolution of Literacy Coaching

(IRA, 2010)

Overview:Shift to Literacy Coaching

(Bean, 2011)

Studies

Bean & Dagen (2012) Time allocated for Literacy Coaching varied considerably based on the needs of their district.

Magin (2009) Districts were resistant to the shift and utilized student data to determine the need for job-embedded professional development.

Overview: Literacy Coaching in the District

Literacy Coaches

One per elementary school

Funded by the district, Title 1, or RttP

Exemplary classroom teachers within the campus organization

Additional coaches are teacher trade-in positions

Principals determine roles based on needs

(B. Darla, personal communication, October 5, 2012)

Overview: Literacy Coaching in the District

• Coaching Model (NCTE & LCC)

• job-embedded professional development

• co-teaching, modeling lessons, observing lessons, and providing feedback and resources.

(B. Darla, personal communication, October 5, 2012)

Overview: Literacy Coaching in the DistrictThe Coaching Clearinghouse Self-Assessment of Elementary Literacy Coaches (Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, 2008)

To collect data on three needs: felt, expressed, and anticipated

Participants: 30 literacy coaches

Result #1: The majority of coaching time was spent on clerical, administrative, or district-related work.

Result #2: A broad focus for coaching (request for a common job description with roles and responsibilities)

Overview: Role Uncertainty

Overview: Role Uncertainty May Impact

Time Spent Working Directly with Teachers Student Achievement

Relationship Between Teacher and Literacy Coach Teacher Change

LCs spending at least one-third of their time working directly with teachers resulted in students at every grade level making significant gains in reading (Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011; Bean, R.M., Draper, J.A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N., 2010).

LCs focused on coaching teachers to become independent and reflective problem solvers by training teachers to challenge their instructional practices led to a high degree of instructional transformation among teachers (Lucas, 2011; Collet, 2012; Steckel, 2009)

ProblemREALITY PROBLEM

• Growing trend to employ literacy coaches.

• No nationally agreed upon definitions or standards for the position (IRA, 2004).

• Classrooms teachers placed in this position with minimal training and without a well-defined job description.

• LCs taking on too many roles and as a result diluting the impact of their work.

Purpose of the StudyDefine and refine clear roles and responsibilities for coaching by examining the perceptions of elementary principals, literacy coaches, and classroom teachers on how coaching can be effectively used.

To better evaluate and improve future coaching efforts to impact teacher practices.

Research Questions1. What are the perceptions of elementary

principals, literacy coaches, and classroom teachers relative to the roles and expectations of literacy coaching?

2. How are the perceptions and expectations regarding literacy coaching similar across these different groups of professionals?

3. What are ways that elementary principals, literacy coaches, and classroom teachers feel that literacy coaching could best contribute to the success of their school's literacy program?

Theoretical Framework

Social Constructivist (Vygotsky, 1986)

Adult Learning Theory, Transformational Learning, Learning Cycle, and Reflective Learning (Leary-Joyce and Wildflowers, 2011)

Methodology: Participants

Largest school zone in an urban North Carolina school district

Elementary Schools• Kindergarten-5th grade campuses• One Literacy Coach assigned to each school

Survey Focus GroupsPrincipals (n = 7)

•72% with more than 10 years of experience

Literacy Coaches (n = 14)•85% with more than 10 years of experience•77% with advance degree

Classroom Teachers (n = 125)•55 % with more than 10 years of experience•41% with advance degree

Principals (n = 7)•86% with more than 10 years of experience

Literacy Coaches (n = 6) * Weekly Schedules

•100% with less than 10 years of experience•100% with advance degree

Classroom Teachers (n = 6)•84% with more than 10 years of experience•67% with advance degree

Methodology: Instruments

Mraz et al.'s (2008) 5-point Likert scale survey

Cross-sectional survey

27 items

Rating of 5 indicated high priority or highly desirable

Total scale reliability: 0.93 and 0.90

Individual subscales: 0.65 to 0.84 (moderate to high)

Quantitative: web-based survey and literacy coaches' weekly schedules

Qualitative: focus group interviews

Methodology: Sequential Mixed-Method

ResearchPhase 1: Web-based Survey (time frame: two weeks)- perception of current and expected literacy coaching roles- volunteer to participate in focus groups

- completing the survey will imply consent to use responses in the study.

Phase 2: Analyzed web-based survey results to create focus group questions (time frame: two weeks)

Phase 3: Conducted six 45-minute Focus Groups and Collect Literacy Coaches' Weekly Schedules

- Collected consent forms from each focus group.- Clarified survey results of how coaches were currently being used and type of

support needed to optimize the role of the literacy coach.- Focus group interviews were tape-recorded

•Groups 1-2: Principals (n=7)•Groups 3-4: Literacy Coaches (n=6) *submit and explain weekly schedules•Groups 5-6: Classroom Teachers (n=6)

Phase 4: Analyzed focus group results and literacy coaches' weekly schedules- Organized and manually coded to identify patterns and themes

Methodology: Sequential Mixed-Method

ResearchResearch

PhaseResearch Questions Data Collection

MethodAnalysis Process

Phase 1: Quantitative

What are the perceptions of elementary principals, teachers, and literacy coaches relative to the roles and expectations of literacy coaching?  What are ways that principals, teachers, and instructional coaches feel that literacy coaching could best contribute to the success of their school’s literacy program?

Cross-sectional surveys sent to principals, teachers, and literacy coaches. Weekly coaching schedules submitted by literacy coaches.

Frequency distribution method

Phase 2: Qualitative 

How are the perceptions and expectations regarding literacy coaching similar across these different groups of professionals? What are ways that principals, teachers, and instructional coaches feel that literacy coaching could best contribute to the success of their school’s literacy program?

Focus groups conducted to interview classroom teachers, literacy coaches, and principals.

Deductive reasoning Constant-comparative method

Limitations

Variation in literacy coaching training

Variation in experiences with implementing literacy coaching

Elementary in K-5 setting

Variation in ratio of principals, literacy coaches, and classroom to school (ratio of classroom teachers to school is larger)

Degree of honesty in self-reporting

Results did not yield a causation conclusion

Findings

RQ 1 - What are the perceptions of principals, literacy coaches, and teachers relative to the roles and expectations of literacy coaching?

Resource to Classroom Teachers

Resource to Allied Professionals and Parents

DESIREDDemonstrate instructional strategies – Coaching Model (ALL)

CURRENTLead group and individual planning sessions. (ALL)

CURRENT and DESIREDWork closely with the principal in setting a schedule and making decisions about staff professional development (ALL)

FindingsRQ 1 - What are the perceptions of principals, literacy coaches, and teachers relative to the roles and expectations of literacy coaching?

Coordinator of the Reading Program

Contributor to Assessments

CURRENTMaintain a center as prime location for various literacy materials (literacy coaches and teachers)

Look for and assist in the selection of new materials (principals)

EXPECTEDMaintain a center as prime location for various literacy materials (principals and teachers)

Look for and assist in the selection of new materials (principals and literacy coaches)

CURRENTAssist in interpreting test results with teachers and parents (ALL)

Assist in the development of assessment instruments (literacy coaches and teachers)

DESIREDAssist in interpreting test results with teachers and parents (principals and literacy coaches)

Assist in the development and selection of assessment instruments (principals and teachers)

FindingsRQ 1 - What are the perceptions of principals, literacy coaches, and teachers relative to the roles and expectations of literacy coaching?

Instructor to StudentsCURRENTWork on a short-term basis with targeted students, and then provide a program for classroom teachers to follow (principals and literacy coaches)

Provide instruction using research supported programs (principals and teachers)

EXPECTEDWork on a short-term basis with targeted students, and then provide a program for classroom teachers to follow (ALL)

Provide instruction using research supported programs (teachers)

Provide instruction for individual and small groups of students, especially those identified as struggling readers (teachers)

FindingsRQ 2 - How are the perceptions and expectations regarding literacy coaching similar across these different groups of professionals?CURRENT

Highest Ratings Lowest RatingsCoordinators of the Reading Program Instructor to Students

EXPECTEDHighest Ratings Lowest Ratings

Resource to Classroom Teachers Contributor to Assessment

FindingsRQ 3 - What are ways that principals, literacy coaches, and teachers feel that literacy coaching could best contribute to the success of their school’s literacy program?

Resource to Classroom TeachersDesired Responsibilities Concerns Solutions

Facilitating planning sessions with teams/individuals

Gathering resources

Leading staff professional development

Engaging in other duties unrelated to supporting teachers

Releasing coaches from duties unrelated to supporting teachers

Lack of cognitive coaching training and understanding of adult learning theory

Providing training during the summer or monthly meetings

Coordinator of the Reading ProgramDesired Responsibilities Concern Solution

Assisting in curriculum writing and in the selection of new materials

Managing the book room and testing materials

Delegating these responsibilities to an assistant or the Dean of Student.

Summary of FindingsINCONSISTENCY: CURRENT ROLES

Quantitative QualitativeCoordinator of the reading program

Contributor to assessment

INCONSISTENCY: EXPECTED RESPONSIBILITIES – Instructor to Students

Quantitative QualitativeDesire for coaches to instruct struggling readers (teachers)

Coach teachers on specific strategies to instruct struggling readers (teachers)

CLARIFICATION OF EXPECTED ROLEQuantitative Qualitative

Resource to classroom teachers (ALL) Follow an on-going coaching model (ALL)

COACHING IMPROVEMENTSQualitative

More coaching time in the classroom (ALL) Cognitive coaching training for coaches (ALL)

Research Question 1: Unclear Roles and Responsibilities

Research Question 2: Follow Coaching Model

Research Question 3: More Coaching Time & Training for Coaches

DiscussionResource to Classrom TeachersCoaches spent majority of time on tasks unrelated to coaching teachers (Coaches’ Weekly Schedule)

District needs to focus on how best to support coaching to improve teacher quality (IRA, 2006; Knight, 2004; Bean, et. al., 2003)

Coaches follow a coaching model (Focus Groups)

Participants are aware of the impact of coaching (Shanklin, 2006; Shaw, 2009)

Resources to Allied Professionals and ParentsCoaches work closely with principals (ALL) Aware of the importance of a strong coach

and principal relationship (Toll, 2006)

Coach is liaison between teacher and principal (Shanklin, 2006)

Coordinator of the Reading ProgramInconsistent perceptions about desired coaching responsibilities (Surveys)

Districts or schools need to clarify the role (Bean, et. al., 2012)

District supports many initiatives (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012)

DiscussionContributor to AssessmentAssessment initiatives limited coaching time (Focus Groups)

District is increasing initiatives with no funds to employ more professionals (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012)

Instructor to StudentsMore coaching time to model strategies for teachers to support students (Focus Groups)

Participants are aware of the impact of coaching (Shanklin, 2006; Shaw, 2009)

Effective CoachingFollow a coaching model Participants are aware of the impact of

coaching (Shanklin, 2006; Shaw, 2009)Provide training on adult learning theory and cognitive coaching

Coaches are employed based on positive relationship with principal (Bean, et. al., 2010)

District does not require coaches to understand adult learning theory or cognitive coaching components (Frost, 2006)

Recommendation #1: Clear Job Description

(Steiner & Kowal, 2007)

(Bean & Dagen, 2012)

Recommendation #2: Clearly Communicate Job

Description

1. Beginning of the year (Bean & Dagen , 2012)

2. Post coach’s general weekly schedule (Bean & Dagen, 2012)

3. Principal Support (Steiner & Koval, 2007)

Meet with coaches weekly reflect and share feedback

Attend staff development and planning sessions communicate importance of coaching enhance knowledge base of literacy practices

Recommendation #3: Implement Coaching

Model

Four to Six Weeks

(Knight, 2007)

Recommendation #3: Implement Coaching

ModelsStudies ImpactLucas (2011)

• Reconciling and improving communication and collaboration among schools• The fidelity of implementing literacy initiatives• Quality of instruction in the classroom

Walker-Dalhouse, et al. (2009)

• Instructional practices that led teachers to implement personally meaningful and culturally relevant curriculum for students.

Peterson, et al. (2009)

• Coaching conversations and interactions facilitated teachers to set improvement goals and promote reflection.

Vanderberg & Stephens (2010)

• Knowledge base and practices of teachers by shifting their focus on curriculum driven based on student needs rather than curriculum covering

Matsumura et al. (2010)

• Instructional practice by guiding teachers to plan and reflect on instruction and leading teachers to build knowledge of the theories underlying effective reading instruction

Collet (2012)

• Teacher understanding of literacy instruction that led them to apply strategies in their own classrooms

Steckel (2009)

• Instructional strategies that motivated teachers to collaborate with peers to critically analyze the success

Recommendation #3: Implement Coaching Models

(Elish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S.K., 2011)

Research-Based Model of Literacy Coaching Focused

on Promoting Student Reading

and Writing Gains

Recommendation #4: Professional Development for Literacy

CoachesFormal training

IRA’s three levels of coaching (Shaw, 2009)Build relationships with teachersIdentify coaching goalsBuild teacher expertise

Change agents (Fullan, 2007)Establish purpose for changeCreate a common vision

Cognitive Coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1999)Prompt teachers to discover answers

Balancing coaching stances (Ippolito, 2009)Responsive – support teachersDirective – support federal and local initiatives

Recommendation #4: Professional Development for Literacy

Coaches

Differentiated Support (Blanchowicz, et al., 2010)

1. Build a strong communal knowledge base2. Collaborate to make the curriculum visible in new ways3. Emphasize culturally relevant instruction and resources4. Help define roles over time5. Support coaches in developing a model for goal setting and

coaching cycles6. Build understanding that development as a coach has recursive

phases7. Provide facilitation that differentiates for coaches8. Design methods for coaches to build teams around student data and

shared inquiry9. Help coaches balance fidelity of treatment with formative treatment10. Connect coaches with the wider professional community.

ImplicationsInclude a larger sampling of coaches

Observe literacy coaches in action

Examine impact of literacy coaching on teacher practice (interview and teachers’ evaluation)

Examine impact of training or support for literacy coaches (interview and coaches’ evaluation)

References

Al Otaiba, S., Hops, J.L., Smartl, S., & Dole, J.A. (2008). The challenging role of a reading coach, a cautionary tale. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18(2), 124-155.

Atteberry, A. & Byrk, A.S. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in literacy coaching activities. Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 356-382.

Bean, R.M. & Dagen (2012). Best practices of literacy leaders: Key to school improvement. New York: Guilford Press

Bean, R.M., Draper, J.A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and coaching in reading first schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114.

Bean, R.M. (2011). The reading coach: Professional development and literacy leadership in the school. In T.V. Rasinsky, Rebuilding the foundation: Effective reading instruction for 21st century literacy (pp. 315-336). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. .

Bean, R.M. & Zigmond, N. (2007, March). The work of coaches in Reading First schools and their roes in professional development. Presentation at American Educational Research Association Conference. Chicago, IL.

ReferencesBush, R. N. (1984). Effective staff development. In making our schools more effective: Proceeding of three state conferences. San Francisco: Far West Laboratories.

Carroll, K. E. (2007). Conversations with coaches: Their roles in Pennsylvania Reading First schools. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text. (AAT3270089)

Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.

Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches & Perspectives (pp. 192-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). “Coach” can mean many things: five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007 – No. 005). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlads

Elish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S.K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading achievement in grades K-1. Literacy Research & Instruction, 49(2), 162-174.

References

Elish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades K-3. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 83-106.

International Reading Association (2010). Standards 2010: Reading specialist/reading coach. Retrieved July 30, 2012, from http://www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010/ProfessionalStandards2010_Role5.html

International Reading Association (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States [Brochure]. Newark, DE: Author.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-10.

Kissel, B., Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Stover, K. (2011). Early childhood literacy coaches’ role perceptions and recommendations for change. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(3), 288-303.

Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 32-37.

ReferencesKnight, J. (2007). Five key points to building a coaching program. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 26-31.

Leary-Joyce, J., & Wildflower, L. (2011). Theories of adult learning. In L. Wildflower & D. Brennan, The handbook of knowledge-based coaching (pp. 73-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lucas, L.J (2011). Coaching: Job embedded professional development. Ethics & Critical Thinking, 2, 34-64.

Lynch, J. & Ferguson, K. (2010). Reflections of elementary school literacy coaches on practice: Roles and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 199-227.

Mangin, M.M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: How district context influence reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 759-792.

Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H.E., & Resnick, L.B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 52(2), 249-272.

References

Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Kissel, B. (2009). The literacy coach’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 141-157.

Neufield, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity promises and practicalities. Education Matters, Inc., The Aspen Institute for Program on Education and the Anneberg Institute for School Reform.

Norton, J. (2007). Adding layers of support: Alabama’s program helps site-based coaches succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 28(1), 20-25.

Peterson, D.S., Taylor, B.M., Burnham, B., & Schock, R. (2009). Reflective coaching conversation: A missing piece. Reading Teacher, 62(6), 500-509.

Roller, C.M. (2006). Reading and literacy coaches: Report on hiring requirements and duties survey. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

References

• Scott, S.E., Cortina, K.S., & Carlisle, J.F. (2012). Understanding coach-based professional development in reading first: How do coaches spend their time and how do teachers perceive coaches’ work. Literacy Research & Instruction, 51(1), 68-85.

• Shanklin, N. (2007). How can you gain the most from working with a literacy coach? Voices from the Middle, 14(4), 44-47.

• Shaw, M. (2009). Teaching and empowering reading specialists to be literacy coaches: Vision, passion, communication and collaboration. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 7-18.

• Shaw, M.L. (2006). A response to the IRA survey of reading/literacy coaches. Reading Today, 23(6), 12.

• Steckel, B. Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact? Reading Teacher, 63(1), 14-23.

• Steinbacher-Reed, C. & Powers, E.A. (2012). Coaching without a coach. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 68-72.

References

• Swafford, J. (1998). Teachers supporting teachers through peer coaching. Support for Learning, 13, 54-58.

• Vanderburg, M. & Stephens, D. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches: What teachers value and how teachers change. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 141-163.

• Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V.J., Lathrop, K., & Porter, S. (2010). Helping diverse struggling readers through reflective teaching and coaching. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 70-72.