Dissertation defense thao

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: Literacy Coaching in the State

Overview: Literacy Coaching in the District

Employs one literacy coach in each elementary school through funds from the district, Title 1, or RttP.

Additional literacy coaches placed in elementary schools are based on principals’ decision to trade in a teaching position.

Literacy coaches are often exemplary classroom teachers within the campus organization.


• Coaching Model (NCTE & LCC)

• Provide job-embedded professional development in the form of co-teaching, modeling lessons, observing lessons, and providing feedback and resources.

• Principals determine the roles and responsibilities of literacy coaches based on the needs of their school.


The 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)

Problem

REALITY 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 Study

Define 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 Questions

1. 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?

Literature Review: Knowles’ Adult Learning Theory

Five Assumptions About Adult Learners 1.Self-directed learners2.Ready to learn3.Equipped with a wealth of experiences4.Problem-centered in their learning5.Motivated by internal factors

(Leary-Joyce & Wildflower, 2011)

Literature Review: Meziro’s Transformational

Learning Theory


Literature Review: Kolb’s Learning Cycle

Adults learn from experiences and process their experience in different ways. (Leary-Joyce & Wildflower, 2011)

Literature Review: Bolton’s Reflective Learning


Literature Review: Types of Coaches

Type of Coaches Purpose Role and Responsibilities

Coaching Models Impact

Peer Coaching (Swafford, 1998)

Improve instructional strategies

Teachers offer each other mutual support within a school.

Technical coaching (training application) Collegial coaching(support for reflection) Challenge coaching (problem solving)

80% gain over traditional workshop delivery on rate of transfer into classroom (Joyce & Showers, 1982).

Cognitive Coaching (Carroll, 2007)

Increase student achievement and teacher efficacy

A mentor, or full-time district level coach, who supports teachers through conversations.

Modeling, explaining, coaching, scaffolding, reflection, articulation, and exploration

Insufficient data to support impact on student achievement, but positive results on teacher efficacy (Dennen, 2004).

Instructional Coaching (Knight, 2004)

Increase student achievement

An on-site professional developer working in one school offering professional development.

Technical coaching Challenge coachingCollegial coaching

Increase teacher practice by 70% by modeling lessons and strategies to teachers (Knight, 2007).

Literacy Coaching (Shanklin, 2007)

Increase literacy within school and across a district

A full-time literacy expert who provides all subject area teachers support in literacy based on instruction.

Modeling, explaining, coaching, scaffolding, reflection, articulation, and exploration

30% of LC’s time spent working directly with teachers resulted reading achievement gains (Elish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S.K, 2010)

Literature Review: 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.

Literature Review:Literacy Coaching Roles and

ResponsibilitiesLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3

Building Relationship Between Coach and

Teachers

•Conversations with teachers•Developing and providing resources for teachers•Developing literacy curriculum•Participating in various professional development•Assisting with student assessment•Teaching students

Identifying Areas of Strength in

Instructional Practices

•Co-planning lessons•Analyzing student work•Interpreting assessment data•Providing formal professional development presentations

Building Teacher Expertise

•In-class support (modeling and co-teaching)•Observing teacher’s instruction•Providing feedback for teachers•Analyzing video lessons

(Shaw, 2009)

Literature Review: Preparing Literacy Coaches

Literature Review: Effective Literacy Coaching

(Bean & Dagen, 2012)

Guidelines

Literature Review: Impact of Literacy Coaching

Studies Impact

Lucas (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

Literature Review: Impact on Students

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

Research-Based Model of Literacy Coaching Focused

on Promoting Student Reading

and Writing Gains

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 Groups

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

Literacy Coaches (n = 14)•77% with less 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)•72% with more than 10 years of experience

Literacy Coaches (n = 6)•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 interviews from 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

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

Resource to Classroom Teachers

DESIRED

High Ratings Low Ratings

Demonstrate instructional strategies – Coaching Model (ALL)

Participate in peer observations for professional growth (literacy coach and classroom teachers)Lead study groups (principals)

CURRENT


Hold formal, collaborative planning sessions on a regular or as needed basis. (ALL)

Participate in peer observations for professional growth (literacy coach and classroom teachers)

Teach in-service classes as staff development (principals)


Resource to Allied Professionals and ParentsCURRENT and DESIRED


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

Work with volunteers (ALL)


Coordinator of the Reading ProgramCURRENT


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

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

Coordinate schedules for reading specialists and classroom teachers (literacy coaches)

Assist in writing curriculum (principals and teachers)

EXPECTED


Maintain 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)

Coordinate schedules for reading specialists and classroom teachers (ALL)


Contributor to AssessmentCURRENT


Assist in interpreting test results (ALL)

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

Share results of assessments with parents and community (ALL)

DESIRED


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

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

Share results of assessments with parents and community (principal)

Coordinate testing schedules (literacy coaches and teachers)

Findings

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

Contributor to AssessmentCURRENT


Work 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)

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

Work with students in either pull-out or in-class settings, or both (teachers)

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

EXPECTED


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

Work with students in either pull-out or in-class settings, or both (ALL)

Findings

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


Coordinators of the Reading Program Instructor to Students

EXPECTED


Resource to Classroom Teachers Contributor to Assessment

Findings

RQ 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 Teachers

Desired Responsibilities Concerns Solutions

Facilitating planning sessions with teams/individualsGathering 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

Findings

RQ 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?Coordinator of the Reading Program

Desired Responsibilities Concerns Solutions

Facilitating planning sessions and curriculum writing

Managing the book room and testing materials

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

Summary of Findings

INCONSISTENCY: CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Quantitative Qualitative

Coordinator of the reading program

Contributor to assessment

INCONSISTENCY: EXPECTED RESPONSIBILITIES


Desire for coaches to instruct struggling readers (teachers)

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

CLARIFICATION OF EXPECTED ROLE


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

COACHING IMPROVEMENTS

Qualitative

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

Research Question 1

Research Question 2

Research Question 3

DiscussionResource to Classrom Teachers

Coaches 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 Parents

Coaches work closely principals (ALL) Aware of the importance of a strong coach and principal relationship (Toll, 2006)

Coordinator of the Reading Program

Inconsistent perceptions about desired coaching responsibilities (Surveys)

Districts or schools need a clarification of the role (Bean, et. al., 2012).

Contributor to Assessment

Assessment initiatives limited coaching time (Focus Groups)

District is increasing initiatives with no funds to employ more professionals

Instructor to Students

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

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

Discussion

Effective Coaching

Follow 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.

Recommendations

1. Clear job description (Lucas, 2011)Administrative support (Steiner & Kowal, 2007)Cohesive communication Data-driven instruction and strategies

2. Clearly Communicate Job Description (Bean & Dagen, 2012)

Early in the school yearMake coach’s weekly schedule available

Recommendations

3. Implement Coaching Cycle (Knight, 2007)Collaboration of Coaches and Teachers – four to six weeksIdentify a focus or an area of concernCoach models, co-teaches, observes, provides feedback, conferences

4. Professional Development for CoachesA. Formal training

IRA’s three levels of coaching (Shaw, 2009)Change agents or cognitive coaching (Fullan, 2007; Costa & Garmston, 1999)Balancing coaching stances (Ippolito, 2009)

Recommendations

B. Differentiate Support (Blanchowicz, et al., 2010)Build a strong communal knowledge baseCollaborate to make the curriculum visible in new waysEmphasize culturally relevant instruction and resourcesHelp define roles over timeSupport coaches in developing a model for goal setting and coaching cyclesBuild understanding that development as a coach has recursive phasesProvide facilitation that differentiates for coachesDesign methods for coaches to build teams around student data and shared inquiryHelp coaches balance fidelity of treatment with formative treatmentConnect coaches with the wider professional community.

Implications

Include 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.

References

Bush, 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.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlads

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlads

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.

http://www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010/ProfessionalStandards2010_Role5.html



References

Knight, 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.

Documents

Dissertation defense thao