Northwest Education

Fall 2006 / Volume 12, Number 1.

• Home
• Archives

Voices

A Trainer’s Voice: Revisiting Your Literacy Coaching Program By Kathy Egawa

Based in Seattle, Washington, Kathy Egawa works as a consultant with literacy coaches and coaching leaders around the United States. She is a founding member of the NCTE/IRA National Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse Advisory Board.

Literacy achievement is an ongoing concern, and literacy coaching has played an increasingly prominent role over the last decade in addressing this challenge. Schools that launched coaching early in the history of this phenomenon began with more enthusiasm than research; indeed, there still remains little direct evidence of literacy coaching’s ultimate intended impact—increased student achievement. These early programs relied on the work of Showers (1985), Showers and Joyce (1996), and Costa and Garmston (2002).

A decade later our field has the advantage of a growing body of professional literature and accumulating experience from coaching leaders, as well as insights from those who have stepped back to conceptualize coaching practices. I share some of that information here, with the hope that those planning to implement literacy coaching, or those reviewing programs already in existence, can think more carefully about the choices they make and the results of those choices.

Revisit Purpose and Roles

In the best of all worlds, literacy coaches begin their work with a clear job description (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006), as well as an understanding of the larger purpose of the district’s coaching program. Undoubtedly coaches who begin this way have the best chance for success.

While the activities traditionally involved in literacy coaching are readily apparent—conversation, reflection, data analysis, goal setting, demonstration, observation, coaching dialogue, to name several—why and to what end coaches are involved in these activities is not always clear (Toll, 2006).

Showers and Joyce (1996) offer the first conceptualization of coaching models, what they distinguish as expert models and guided models. Expert models focus on program implementation with others setting the goals that teachers are asked to put into practice. Guided models, in contrast, focus on deepening teacher understandings and supporting teachers as they incorporate those into their teaching. Coaching within each model calls for different emphases and different coach/teacher relationships (Robinson, Egawa, Riddle Buly, & Coskie, 2005).

Coaching leader and coach of coaches, Cathy Toll, offers another conceptualization (in press); at its simplest, she distinguishes the primary goals of coaching as intervening, leading, or partnering. Each is based on a different belief about the causes of our literacy challenges and how best to address them.

Revisit Who Is Coached and Why

Two new coaches that I met at a summer institute face the challenge of coaching teachers in multiple schools. Clearly, if they are to have an impact, each needs a plan about who will be coached and why.

It is not uncommon for those facing such daunting work to “go with the goers,” the teachers who express an interest in working with the coach. Other coaches are asked to work with “struggling” teachers, a sure obstacle when the next round of participants is solicited. Coaches charged with monitoring the fidelity of program implementation should work with all staff members using the program or practices. Beyond these, educators may not have considered other options for the focus of coaching. Here are several:

When the work of literacy coaches is helping teachers identify and solve problems—work of concern to all teachers—cohorts can be identified by data needs, i.e. third-grade teachers preparing students for the fourth-grade reading test or science teachers exploring the development of content vocabulary, and all teachers within each cohort then partner with the coach. This expectation—that teaching is about thinking through one’s practice and that coaches support that thinking—removes many of the obstacles.

Boston Public Schools refined this expectation one step further. During the eight-year evolution of their coaching program, formerly school-based coaches are now district based and assigned based on student population to eight-week coaching cycles. Known as CLC cycles, teachers may actually spend less time with a coach, but all involved report increased involvement and change (Kral, 2006). At the heart of the work is data-based cohort selection, teacher identification of the work focus with coaches highlighting district goals, and cohorts often taking up the shared inquiry beyond the eight-week cycle.

Another example comes from Bellingham (Washington) where a decade-long commitment to coaching is in place throughout the district. All professional staff is coached, including the administration. Even the experienced coaching leaders work with coaches to refine their work. (For more details, see www.ncte.org/collections/ literacycoach/resources/118029.htm)

Revisit the Focus of Literacy Coaching

Two common emphases of literacy coaching are the implementation of an instructional program or the addition of reading strategies, yet frequently neither is enough to influence achievement. Additional influences include self-efficacy (the confidence that one has the capacity to produce a desired behavior) and remediation (refashioning of curricular and instructional conditions to include multiple forms of media) to successfully engage “at-risk” students (Alvermann, 2001; Luke & Elkins, 2000). In addition, Tatum (2005) argues that addressing cultural relevance is necessary to achieve more effective literacy instruction.

Further, I urge literacy coaches to coach beyond strategies by helping teachers infuse music, visual arts, and multimedia into curricular learning experiences. With this approach, teachers help students engage with topics through experiences that support their reading and help them explore new concepts through the complex literacies available in the larger culture (Albers & Egawa, 2004, in press).

Toll (in press) describes literacy coaching as a teacher-affirming activity in which one effectively coaches a variety of teachers in a variety of situations, including some challenging ones, by maintaining an emphasis on strengths and an attitude that respects the worth and dignity of all educators. I invite you and your colleagues to use the experiences of others to revisit your coaching decisions today.

References

Albers, P., & Egawa, K. (2004). Can’t sing the same song twice: Designing multimodal, inquiry-based curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Hawaii Council of Teachers of English and Hawaii Association of School Librarians, Oahu, HI.

Albers, P., & Egawa, K. (in press). Project Multimedia: Designing interdisciplinary curricula in a digital age. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Alvermann, D. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Executive summary and paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T. (2006). Lessons and recommendations from the Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining focus on secondary reading. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

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

Kral, C. (with Egawa, K., & Toll, C.) (2006). Keys for successful literacy coaching at the secondary level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago, IL.

Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (2000). Re/mediating adolescent literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 396-398.

Robinson, L., Egawa, K., Riddle Buly, M., & Coskie, T. (2005). FAQs about literacy coaching. Voices from the Middle, 13(1), 66-67.

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.

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

Tatum, A. (2005). Teaching reading to black adolescent males: Closing the achievement gap. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Toll, C.A. (2006). The literacy coach’s desk reference: Processes and perspectives for effective coaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Toll, C.A. (in press). Lenses on coaching: Conceptualizations, functions, and outcomes. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.