From the study design to the site, participants, and data corpus, the logic of
reasoning throughout the analysis is explored. This exploration includes the data selection process, analytical examples, and complications encountered.
Chapter V: Preparation for the Coaching Conference Results
This is the first of three chapters devoted to the results of the study. Each of the three chapters addresses the three stages of the coaching conference, the preplanning, the actual conference, and the retrospective analysis once the conference is completed. This chapter focuses on the coach‘s preparation for the conference. It demonstrates how the teachers were teaching before the coaching conference and how the coach decided to share that data with both teachers.
Chapter VI: During the Coaching Conference Results
Exploring the ways in which the coach and teachers interacted during the coaching conversations is the focus of this chapter. Ways in which fraught interactions are initiated, escalated, and resolved are addressed. This chapter illustrates the challenges of sustaining social equilibrium during a coaching conference when status differences, face threats, and in-the-moment discursive decisions complicate interactions.
Chapter VII: Post-Coaching Analysis Results
In a retrospective analysis of the coaching conferences, the researcher analyzes the coach and teachers‘ interactions. What was invisible during the coaching conference to the coach that the researcher was, in hindsight and with discursive analytical tools, able to make visible? This chapter raises the coaching dilemma of tactical interactions,
Chapter VIII: Discussion
What is the significance of this study for teachers, literacy coaches, and researchers? This chapter reviews the research questions in light of the results and suggests new conceptions of what it means to be a successful coach and build trust, productive relationships, and address resistance. The chapter also includes qualifications of the study and suggestions for future research.
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
LITERACY COACHING: AN INTERACTIVE PHENOMENON
Introduction
[L]iteracy coaching is being widely implemented based on its convergence with theory and the wisdom of practitioners, before rigorous evaluations have been carried out (Snow, Ippolito, & Schwartz, 2006, p. 36).
It is fair to say that job-embedded4, ongoing, sustained professional learning for teachers, often enacted as coaching, is the fastest growing professional development model in the country (Russo, 2004, pp. 4-5). The major reasons for the current coaching phenomena are two-fold. The first derives from the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2001 that included funding for early literacy Reading First state grants. Coaches were expected to support teachers‘ implementation of
research-based reading practices identified by the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel Reports of the Subgroups, 1999). The second reason for the explosion of coaching across the country comes out of the professional development literature.
Traditional one-shot workshops and conferences showed little impact on teacher practice in the classroom (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Goldenberg & Galimore,
4
Job-embedded coaching refers to on-site work in schools and classrooms with teachers directly related to lesson planning, instruction, and assessment. Job-embedded coaching refers to supporting the everyday experience of teachers working with students in school and district contexts Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J. (2010). Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how
1991; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 1980; Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987). With the rise of the standards movement in the 1990‘s, the complexity of teaching and learning for higher order thinking pointed up the inadequacies of short-term
professional development. If teachers were to adopt increasingly sophisticated ways of teaching, it would take more time and active learning to accomplish (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
NCLB ushered in an era of unprecedented accountability for student achievement, with sanctions for schools failing to meet Annual Yearly Progress goals (Hess & Finn, 2007; Sunderman & Kim, 2007; Valenzuela, Prieto, & Hamilton, 2007). The pressure brought to bear on educators for continuously increasing student achievement led many administrators across the nation to rush to implement approaches that would prevent their school from being labeled as ―failing.‖ Further, many previously labeled ―high-
performing‖ schools were found to have large academic disparities between affluent, non-minority students and students traditionally marginalized in our society, including linguistically, racially, ethnically, and academically diverse students. Thus, the pressure to produce academic results as measured by state tests was felt across the board.
Second, coaching emerged as a response to professional development (PD) research that demonstrated disappointing results from traditional forms of inservice teacher education. Joyce and Showers‘ (Joyce & Showers, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996; Showers, 1990; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Showers, et al., 1987) line of research on peer coaching demonstrated the efficacy of teacher dyads visiting one another‘s classrooms to observe, debrief, and encourage implementation of new practices. They were able to show that peer coaching increased implementation of instructional practices significantly
over workshops alone. As Jake Cornett and Jim Knight (2008) explain in their review of the coaching literature, peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1981) and cognitive coaching5 (Costa & Garmston, 1994) were both early forms of coaching that preceded newer instantiations such as literacy and instructional coaching.
Because of the relatively recent arrival of literacy and instructional coaching, literature about them is limited. What exists leans heavily on established and evolving coaching models. These models overlap in practice.6 Most avoid evaluation, try to maintain nonjudgmental language, and involve classroom practice. All have as their aim the improvement of teacher skill and knowledge as applied to classroom instruction for the benefit of student learning. All approach the improvement of teacher practice through social interaction between a teacher and a coach, who is sometimes a colleague or
5
Cognitive Coaching derived from a supervisory model designed to mediate teacher thinking to support reflection, cognitive growth, and self-direction. According to Ellison and Hayes, founders of the Center for Cognitive Coaching, the model was in response to behaviorist approaches that told teachers what and how to teach. Cognitive Coaching is a process that provides teachers with choice and control Ellison, J., & Hayes, C. (2009). Cognitive Coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 70- 90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.. Through ―planning, observing, and reflecting‖ Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J., Cramer, J., Hanson, L., Huang, W., Lee, Y., et al. (2005). Professional development coaches: Perceptions of critical characteristics. Journal of
School Leadership, 15(1), 52-75. Coaches support teacher thought processes about their
instructional decision-making. 6
Coaching models are numerous, overlapping, and ever-evolving. Poglinco et al. (2003) identified five coaching models: technical, collegial, peer, mentoring, and literacy. Jim Knight, Director of the Kansas Coaching Project, identified six types of coaching: instructional, literacy, cognitive, content, differentiated, and leadership Knight, J. (Ed.). (2009b). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.. Neufeld and Roper (2003) researched change and content coaching. Coggins et al. (2003) studied reform coaches. Rhonda Nowak (2003) identified ten types of coaching,
including: technical, reflective, practical arguments, collegial, cognitive, linguistic, challenge, team, reciprocal, and ―Reading Recovery ‗behind-the-glass‘ facilitation‖ (p. 48). Kristin Rainville (2007) found six different instantiations of coaching. The
sometimes an exemplary teacher hired for the role of coach. However, beyond these similarities, the literature is not clear on where one form of coaching leaves off and another begins. Further, researchers are not in agreement when it comes to identifying coaching models. Among researchers, no two lists of coaching models are the same. The plethora of coaching types is accompanied by a lack of consensus as to what to call coaches, the nature of a coach's work and what kind of training a coach needs to be successful (Mraz, Algozzine, & Watson, 2008; Roller, 2006) . Literacy coaching as a recent form of coaching appears to be a pastiche that borrows from many coaching models in research as well as in practice.
Recognizing these constraints, that the literature on literacy coaching is thin and borrowed and lacking in definition, in this review I will extend this review beyond literacy coaching to include results from a range of coaching studies relevant to
understanding coaching challenges that are applicable across a range of coaching models, including literacy coaching.
Research Questions
This review builds on four previous efforts to assess the state of research on school coaching dominated by these models (Cornett & Knight, 2008; L'Allier, Elish- Piper, & Bean, 2010; Sailors & Price, 2009; Snow, Ippolito, & Schwartz, 2006). Each reviewer categorized the coaching literature in different ways. Reading more than 250 studies, Cornett and Knight, 2008, organized their review around four coaching models: Peer Coaching, Cognitive Coaching, Literacy Coaching, and Instructional Coaching. L‘Allier, Elish-Piper, and Bean, 2010, organized their research by asking and answering practitioner questions about coaching with what reading/literacy coaching research says
about it. Sailors and Price (2009) focused on six areas of research on teaching related to reading coaching: craft, domain knowledge, teacher efficacy, special education, writing instruction, and preservice science teacher education to make the point that coaching research in relation to reading comprehension does not yet exist. Snow, Ippolito, and Schwartz (2006) looked at middle and high school literacy coaching research to determine what we know and what still needs to be known about coaching at the secondary level.
In this review, my interest is in understanding the current state of literacy
coaching, prek-12, as it relates to teacher-coach interaction. My rationale for the selection of content is based on the premise that coaching is an interactive phenomenon and little has been written about what happens during coaching conversations. To date, the literature has addressed coaching roles and coaching challenges, but few studies have investigated the social interactions that occur in-the-moment between teachers and coaches that contribute to those challenges or shape those roles. Given the recent growth of coaching, it is understandable that few studies exist that apply microanalyses to coaching interactions. Also, given the Federal and State pressure for increased student achievement along with advances in statistical analyses, it is understandable that some of the most current studies are empirical, experimental and quasi-experimental (cf. Garet et al., 2008; Hough, 2008; Matsumura, Garnier, Junker, Resnick, & Bickel, 2008; Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). Increasingly, causal studies apply statistical analysis
methodologies that ―isolate the influence of any given factor on an outcome, taking into account the other potential influences‖ (Wenglinsky, 2000, p. 6). Nonetheless, case studies, surveys, interviews, and observations dominate the literacy coaching literature by
a large margin over quantitative, control group studies. The focus of this review will be the results from qualitative case studies, surveys, interviews, and observational data that contribute to a coherent picture of the coach‘s role, coaching actions and the challenges coaches face.
What is the Literacy Coach’s Role and How is it Enacted?
These two deceptively simple questions are found throughout the coaching literature. Four widely circulated reports on coaching were published in 2003, prior to empirical evidence linking coaching teachers to increased student achievement (Coggins, et al., 2003; Neufeld & Roper, 2003a; Poglinco, et al., 2003; Symonds, 2003). All are qualitative, descriptive designs involving on-site observations, case studies, interviews, and/or surveys of teachers, schools, and/or districts using coaching models and all approach coaching as a school reform lever. Coggins et al. (2003) and Symonds (2003) focused on coaching as it was enacted in the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Coggins et al. looked at the distributed leadership role of reform coaches. Symonds reported on three districts‘ literacy coaches at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Neufeld and Roper (2003) described two types of coaches, change and content, working over time across sites, including Boston, Corpus Christi, Louisville, and San Diego. Poglinco et al. (2003) contributed an evaluation study of America‘s Choice reading/writing workshop literacy coaching model.
Who are Literacy Coaches?
Who are literacy coaches according to these reports? Often, they are respected teachers who have demonstrated expertise in teaching reading and writing, some hired from within a district or school, others hired from outside (Poglinco, et al., 2003; Symonds,
2003). In the America‘s Choice program, half came directly from the classroom and half had experiences in professional development, support, or administrative roles in addition to classroom experience. However, a significant number of coaches had little or no experience working with adult learners (Poglinco, et al., 2003).7 Inexperience working with adult learners is a concern raised by many literacy coaches (Blamey, Meyer, & Walpole, 2009; Poglinco, et al., 2003) and provides one reason why a study of coaching interaction may be useful to coaches looking for guidance.
What Do Literacy Coaches Do?
The question that receives more attention in these studies asks what do coaches do? Symonds‘ (2003) and Neufeld and Roper‘s (2003) study reported literacy coaches were expected to work directly with teachers, modeling lessons, observing teaching, and coaching teachers individually or in small groups on both content and pedagogy.8 This contrasts with Poglinco‘s (2003) study that found a lack of formal job descriptions.
7
Demographic data from Reading First coaches in five states, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, found that 70% of the coaches ―had no coaching experience prior to Reading First‖ Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007).
"Coach" can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First
(No. REL 2007- 005 Issues & Answers Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs..
8
Numerous publications echo this job description Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). "Coach" can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches
in Reading First (No. REL 2007- 005 Issues & Answers Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs, Frost, S., & Bean, R. (2006). Qualifications for literacy coaches: Achieving the gold standard. Retrieved April 12,
2010, from www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/LiteracyCoaching.pdf, International
Reading Association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States. A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark,
Poglinco identified two types of coaches: change coaches, whose role was to build the organizational capacity of schools by supporting administrators and systemic reform; and content coaches, whose role was to improve instruction by working directly with
teachers. Coggins et al. (2003) also identified systemic aspects of coaching, finding that reform coaches brokered knowledge through data and assessment, bringing new research and resources to the school, and acting as keepers of the vision of reform.
How Do Literacy Coaches Spend Their Time?
Simply knowing that literacy coaches are in schools does not imply anything about how those individuals are spending their time, because there is a difference between being a coach and doing coaching (Deussen, et al., 2007, pp. 4, 5 ).
Systemic, whole school reforms designed to improve teaching and learning, position literacy coaches as key players, central to the success of the reform. When coaching is viewed as the lever for school reform, the coaches' role is far more than working alongside teachers to improve classroom literacy instruction. Over successive years, the role of literacy coach may include being a keeper of the vision, an anchor for the literacy initiative via data analysis, communication across multiple levels of
administration, a buffer against the vicissitudes of short educational attention spans when new initiatives threaten to fragment ongoing reforms, a resource provider and manager, as well as a provider of professional development for teachers. The role of coach can be daunting, particularly in the early years of a reform initiative when the coach has not had time to establish herself with teachers and build her credibility. Regardless of her title, and whether engaged in systemic reform or not, she cannot simply walk into teachers‘ classrooms and begin coaching. Role negotiation with both teachers and administrators, building trust, establishing relationships, earning respect and access, take time. Given the
length of time it takes to build relationships and establish oneself in a new role, it is understandable that some coaches spend less time working alongside teachers in the first few years of a reform effort. Coaches know that improving teachers' classroom
instruction is central to their work. But the role itself places many demands on a coach's time and energy, limiting the amount of time a coach has for working side-by-side with teachers.
A study of instructional coaches by Celine Coggins, Pamela Stoddard, and Elisabeth Cutler (2003) supports this claim. The coaches in the study acknowledged that the heart of their role was to improve teachers‘ classroom instruction. However, in practice, Coggins et al. found there was a discrepancy between what coaches said they should do and what actually occurred. The coaches in Coggins' study spent most of their time leading and coordinating school-based reforms rather than coaching teachers in classrooms, particularly during the first few years of the school improvement effort. Those were years when coaches spent much of their time attending to the establishment of the literacy initiative, coordinating and interpreting assessments, communicating with stakeholders including administrators and teachers, and determining teacher and student needs in addition to working in small groups or one-on-one with teachers. Coggins' study noted that the longer the school/coach was involved in the reform model, the more often the coach worked with teachers. Early in the reform experience, coaches spent 57% of their time in role negotiation,9 establishing relationships with teachers, building trust,
9
Others have found that initially, coaches spend much of their time in role negotiation, building credibility, trust, and relationships with teachers Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J., Cramer, J., Hanson, L., Huang, W., Lee, Y., et al. (2005). Professional development coaches: Perceptions of critical characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 15(1), 52-
gaining entry to classrooms, becoming a respected colleague, compared with 76% of their time working directly with teachers to improve their instruction in schools that had
participated longer in the reform effort (Coggins, et al., 2003).
In addition to role negotiation during the early years of a literacy initiative that limited the time coaches spent working directly with teachers to improve instruction, some coaches appeared to prefer aspects of their roles other than coaching teachers. A report on categories of Reading First coaches (Deussen, et al., 2007), also supported the results from Coggins et al. (2003) and determined that some coaches prefer managerial duties while other coaches prefer working with teachers. Deussen et al. (2007) found that Reading First K-3 literacy coaches, while expected to spend 60-80% of their time working with teachers, actually worked with teachers only 28% of their time (p.iv). Coaches were found to be either managers, oriented toward data or students, or oriented toward teachers individually or in groups. "There is a difference between being a coach and doing coaching," (Deussen, et al., 2007, pp. 4, 5 ). It does not seem
surprising that former teachers now in the role of coach would value working with students. Assisting students is familiar territory, something they likely were successful with in practice. However, the coaches in Deussen's study as a group spent less than half the expected time working directly with teachers. Deussen's results raise questions about why so little time was spent coaching, even taking