To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Back to Graphic Version

Research Brief

Connecting Coaching and Improved Literacy By Theresa Deussen and Marsha Riddle Buly

While students face more and more complicated texts as they advance through school, the fact is they receive little if any reading instruction past the fourth grade. The unfortunate consequence is reflected in national literacy statistics: More than eight million U.S. students in grades 4–12 are struggling readers. According to the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fewer than a third of our country’s eighth-graders read at or above grade level (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). The research also shows that students who leave third grade as struggling readers continue to have difficulties reading when they reach high school.

In an attempt to address the problem, an increasing number of states and districts are turning to literacy coaches at both the elementary and secondary levels. Some are doing so as part of their participation in federal programs such as Reading First, which require grantee schools to provide coaches to support their K–3 teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Others are encouraged by research on the importance of ongoing, job-embedded professional development for teachers; they see literacy coaches as logical providers of such training.

Literacy or reading coaches are typically experienced, effective teachers who step out of the classroom and into the role of supporting or mentoring other teachers to strengthen their reading instruction. Coaching can fulfill many of the standards established by the National Staff Development Council (2001). The Council recommends that professional development include:

• The organization of educators into “learning communities” that have clear goals, consistent with school and district goals
• Effective leadership to support “continuous instructional improvement”
• The application of research to school and classroom strategies and decision making
• Support for teacher collaboration

While there is little scientific evidence that specifically addresses the impact of literacy coaches, substantial research suggests that coaching can be an effective means of strengthening teachers’ instruction. Early work by Showers and Joyce (1996) found that teachers were more likely to adopt and “own” new practices and strategies when they had coaching and in-class feedback to accompany their professional development. Neufeld and Roper (2003) report that teachers whose professional development includes coaching were more likely to try out the new ideas they learned.

There have also been some preliminary connections between coaching and changes in student outcomes. For example, a three-year study of the impact of Cognitive Coaching (a particular model of coaching) showed student scores improved on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in treatment schools compared to control groups (Grinder, 1996). The same study showed referrals to special education declined in the treatment schools. Researchers from the Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning (Swartz, 2003) have reported a positive effect on student achievement linked to coaching. Likewise, Lyons and Pinnell (2001) saw a connection between literacy coaching and increased achievement in reading and writing.

Norton (2001) documented the positive results of the statewide Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) on the literacy of seventh-grade students. Lapp and her colleagues (2003) showed increased student literacy achievement when reading specialists provided half-time peer coaching and half-time student tutoring in three high-poverty schools.

However, these reports are primarily evaluations or program self-reports. They are limited in that they describe vastly different interventions in very different contexts. Overall, there is little exploration of what it is that coaches do that makes a difference in student learning (Greene, 2004).

Fulfilling multiple roles

Part of the difficulty comes from the multiple meanings embedded in the word “coach.” Although it is increasingly common for schools to report that they have reading coaches, it is far from clear that these schools share common experiences. Instead, there’s tremendous variation in how coaches’ time and expertise is employed.

Recently published descriptions show coaches fulfilling a wide range of roles, including the following:

• Assist teachers in implementing new curricular programs (Poglinco et al., 2003)
• Consult with and mentor teachers (Costa & Garmston, 2002)
• Support teachers as they “apply knowledge, develop skills, polish technique and deepen their understanding” (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001)
• Write grants (Walpole & McKenna, 2004)
• Plan and research (Walpole & McKenna, 2004)
• Lead discussion groups (Sweeney, 2003)
• Facilitate study or book groups (Walpole & McKenna, 2004)

Even within a single federal program such as Reading First, there is substantial variation in how coaches are used. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s work on the statewide evaluations of Reading First in five western states (Autio, Nelsestuen, & Deussen, 2006; Deussen, Autio, Nelsestuen, Roccograndi, & Scott, 2006; Nelsestuen & Autio, 2005; Smiley & Vale, 2005) documented instances of coaches working in most of the ways highlighted previously. The coaches also take on additional tasks that consume a significant portion of their time in schools:

• Coordinate student reading assessments (administer, score, enter data, assist teachers with interpretation of results)
• Coordinate interventions for struggling readers (identify students; plan intervention lessons; hire, train, and supervise interventionists; monitor student progress)
• Coordinate and/or provide group professional development

In addition to the enormous variety of roles and responsibilities, there is disagreement about the degree to which coaching should be directive, geared to ensuring implementation of a program, or collegial and targeted at enhancing teacher capacity for self-reflection (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002). In the former, the coach plays the role of an expert coming in to help teachers implement a program with specific practices; the coach’s work can become that of encouraging program compliance. Some research suggests that teachers may be less likely to change in compliance models, although newer teachers may be more open to this type of coaching (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995).

In contrast, coaching for self-reflection is a more collaborative model in which both the coach and the teacher share equally in decisions about instruction. The job of the coach varies, but often includes helping teachers deepen their understanding of how students learn to read and write as well as the teacher’s role in making learning effective.

In one version of reflection-oriented coaching developed by the Learning Network, district or outside facilitators train selected teachers as reflective teachers in their own classrooms. Once the selected new coaches have internalized the reflection process and have deepened their own understandings about literacy, they begin to coach others. Coaches work “alongside” their teacher colleagues, providing personalized support based on the goals and needs identified by individual teachers; sometimes teachers are “nudged” by the coach based on school or district goals and expectations (Riddle Buly, 2004).

This approach to coaching appears to be associated with an increased use of effective instructional practices (Mallette, Maheady, & Harper, 1999); positive change in school culture (Edwards, Green, Lyons, Rogers, & Swords, 1998); and teacher reflection and depth of thinking (Edwards & Green, 1999). Furthermore, positive student outcomes were documented when preservice teachers engaged in literacy-focused peer coaching (Mallette, Maheady, & Harper, 1999).

Seeking answers

With so many possible combinations of roles, responsibilities, and orientations falling within the coaching domain, educators need guidance in deciding the best ways to focus the work of coaches. This question is all the more crucial as more states and districts invest educational funds in providing coaches and want to ensure that the investment yields results. Under Reading First alone, more than 5,600 schools have hired full-time reading coaches. Many other states and districts have deployed coaches in their elementary as well as middle and high schools—without necessarily knowing how best to use them as a resource.

As an article in Education Week (Manzo, 2005) pointed out, although the use of coaches is increasingly common, some experts worry that many coaches may lack the knowledge and expertise needed to help teachers improve their reading instruction. It is even harder to provide this guidance when educators are uncertain about what it is that coaches should be doing.

Future research can help point the way by clarifying what effective coaching looks like, what qualities schools should look for when hiring coaches, and what training coaches need to become effective. Research is needed on how coaches work, the prevalence of compliance versus reflective models, and how these variations affect instruction and, ultimately, student learning. All this information can help states, districts, and schools use their precious resources wisely to provide the training and guidance needed to maximize the effective use of literacy coaches.

About the authors: Theresa Deussen is a project director in the Center for Research, Evaluation, and Assessment at NWREL. She is the principal investigator in a current study of how Reading First coaches spend their time (see NWREL Research Examines How Reading First Coaches Spend Their Time). Marsha Riddle Buly is an associate professor of literacy education at Western Washington University in Bellingham.

References

Autio, E., Nelsestuen, K., & Deussen, T. (2006). Wyoming Reading First: Year 2 evaluation report 2005–2006. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A foundation for Renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Deussen, T., Autio, E., Nelsestuen, K., Roccograndi, A., & Scott, C. (2006). Washington Reading First annual evaluation report 2006. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Edwards, J.L., & Green, K.E. (1999, April). Growth in coaching skills over a three-year period: Progress toward mastery. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Edwards, J.L., Green, K.E., Lyons, C.A., Rogers, M.S., & Swords, M.E. (1998, April). The effects of Cognitive Coaching and nonverbal classroom management on teacher efficacy and perceptions of school culture. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 52–66.

Greene, T. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from www.nsdc.org/library/schoolbasedlitreview.pdf

Grinder, M. (1996). Envoy: Your personal guide to classroom management. Battle Ground, WA: Michael Grinder Associates.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading specialist. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 33–36.

Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Mallette, B., Maheady, L., & Harper, G.F. (1999). The effects of reciprocal peer coaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22 (4), 201–216.

Manzo, K. (2005, July 25). States and districts send literacy coaches to the rescue: But experts worry that some of them lack know-how to help teachers with reading. Education Week. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from www.edweek.org/ew/articles

National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm

Nelsestuen, K., & Autio, E. (2005). Montana Reading First annual evaluation report 2005. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity—Promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, and Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Norton, J. (2001). A storybook breakthrough. Journal of Staff Development, 22(4), 22–25. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/norton224.pdf

Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006451.pdf

Poglinco, S.M., Bach, A.J., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J.A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from www.cpre.org/Publications/AC-06.pdf

Riddle Buly, M. (2004). A districtwide instructional coaching professional development process: Bellingham, Washington. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.

Smiley, R., & Vale, E. (2005). Alaska Reading First annual evaluation report 2005. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Swartz, S. (2003). The Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning (2003) research report: 1994–2003. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from www.stanswartz.com/foundationresearchreport1.htm

Sweeney, D. (2003). Learning along the way: Professional development by and for teachers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Service.

Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to research-based practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.