Kerscher Research Paper July 2018

Running head: THE LITERACY COACH AS A PRACTICE CHANGE AGENT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LITERACY COACH AS A PRACTICE CHANGE
AGENT
A Research Project
Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Education
Viterbo University
Kelly Demerath
Research Advisor
Susan R. Hughes, Ed. D.

Coordinator of Graduate Research in Education
Tracy Stewart, Ph.D.,

Vice President for Academic Affairs and
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Education
By
Trina V. Kerscher
July 2018
THE LITERACY COACH AS A PRACTICE CHANGE AGENT 2
Abstract
The purpose of this mixed-methods case study was to investigate the impact of the literacy coach
as a practice change agent. The researcher’s population of participants included the classroom
teacher and seventeen kindergarten students. The participants included eleven males and six
females and four English Learners from a large urban school district. After conducting the study,
the researcher concluded that the literacy coach had a positive impact on all aspects of literacy in
the classroom, including teacher efficacy and early literacy skill development. The researcher
showed academic gains in literacy, regardless of gender or English acquisition. In future
applications of this research, the researcher intends to continue with the Critical Incident Survey
to gauge teacher feelings during coaching, and to incorporate many of the coaching strategies
developed during the research.

The Effectiveness of the Literacy Coach as a Practice Change Agent
Introduction
The purpose of this mixed-methods case study was to investigate the impact of the
literacy coach as a practice change agent. Literacy coaching has become a common practice in
most schools across the country. Within this spectrum, teachers have discovered that a change to
the ways they have always been teaching is part of the new expectation. Unfortunately, many
teachers in my school hold the belief that what they have been doing for the past 15-20 years is
working fine, and they do not need a coach in their classrooms making suggestions on what to
do, or telling them their instructional practice is incorrect.
Research continues to show a sound correlation between literacy coaching and student
achievement. In the study, “Examining the Relationship Between Literacy Coaching and
Student Reading Gains in Grades K-3,” Elish-Piper and L’Allier (2011) discovered that the
more time a literacy coach spent in a classroom, the greater the student gained. Abernathy-
Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek (2013) found that teacher efficacy improved during the phase a
coach was in the classroom. As teachers gained a better understanding of strategic ways to
teach the curriculum, their sense of accomplishment improved as well. When teacher efficacy
is improved, student achievement is improved as well.
I completed my first year of literacy coaching during the 2016-2017 school year.
Through the course of the year, I noticed some teachers were reluctant to allow me to visit
their classrooms; they did not see the value. I heard, “I have been teaching this way for years,
and my students are making gains, why do I need someone coming into my classroom to tell
me I am doing ‘it’ wrong?” During the same school year we received a new writing
curriculum: The Lucy Calkins Writing Units of Study (WUOS), then during the 2017-2018
school year, we received the companion reading curriculum: The Lucy Calkins Reading Units
of Study (RUOS). Teachers needed professional development and time to collaborate to
progress their way through these sophisticated curricula.
My hope in conducting this action research was to demonstrate how learning with a
literacy coach by the teacher’s side could strengthen their teaching skills and show positive
growth in student achievement. Another goal was to improve teacher efficacy through the use
of the Continuum of Coaching framework (Puig & Froelich, 2011) to assist me through the
teacher learning progressions. Strategies I used while coaching in the lab classroom were
modeling, observing, and conferencing.
Problem Statement
The problem that I identified was two-fold. Some teachers did not see the value in
participating in a yearlong learning lab with a literacy coach (myself) in their classroom. During
the 2016-2017 school year, I noticed an inconsistency in teacher self-efficacy skills. For
example, some teachers struggled with student engagement and classroom management, while
others struggled with instructional strategies and student engagement. Few teachers in my
school were inconsistent with all three: student engagement, instructional strategies, and
classroom management.
Based on books I have read on coaching training, building relationships was the first and
most important step to take as a literacy coach. However, I had already built relationships with
all the teachers as I had been teaching in the school for four years. I wondered, then, why was
there still the reluctance to invite me into their classroom? I decided to do an investigation into
how teachers experience the stages of learning to help answer my questions. By understanding
this process, I believe that it is a critical first step to making a positive change in teacher beliefs,
attitudes, self-efficacy, and regarding having a coach in their classroom.
By designing the coaching strategies around this change cycle, with the use of student
data, along with a survey of teacher feelings and expectations during the change process, I will
be better equipped to support teachers and help develop self-efficacy skills and beliefs.
According to Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek Jr (2013), teachers with self-efficacy hold
students to higher standards and work to help them meet their individual learning goals.
Perceptive teachers use appropriate methods and programs that include phonological awareness,
phonemic awareness, context strategies, and fluency in their daily literacy instruction, as well as
engage in professional development which they in turn transfer into their teaching (Abernathy-
Dyer et al., 2013, p.4).
Another issue that made for a cause to conduct this research was the large gap between
STAR reading scores and Fountas & Pinnell (F&P) scores. At the end of 2016-2017 school year,
I heard the comment many times that students really struggled with the comprehension section of
the F&P reading assessment. I wondered how teachers were teaching deeper comprehension to
their students. Teacher efficacy in regards to instructional strategies should be addressed. Our
new RUOS curriculum teaches students how to think deeper about the text. Teaching the new
curriculum with fidelity is a critical first step in improving the comprehension scores, and
improving teacher efficacy of instructional strategies.
Purpose Statement
When I was first starting out as a teacher, I had the incredible opportunity to work closely
with an amazing literacy coach. With her guidance, I was able to craft my teaching techniques
around what was best for students. I learned how to use data to drive my instruction, be more
reflective, and have fun teaching. The specific purpose of this action research was to investigate
the effectiveness of the literacy coach as a practice change agent and ways in which a literacy
coach can guide teachers through a new literacy program.
Research Questions and Sub-Questions
The overarching question that drove this study is: What is the effectiveness of the
literacy coach as a practice change agent? The independent variable was the teacher using the
Lucy Calkins Reading Units of Study. The dependent variables were student literacy assessment
scores, phonemic awareness scores, and concepts of print, along with feedback from the Critical
Incident Survey conducted weekly by the teacher. I investigated several sub-questions: (a) how
will having a literacy coach in the classroom impact teacher efficacy; (b) to what extent will
working with a literacy coach improve student achievement; and (c) what is the importance of
job-embedded professional development?
While conducting the case study, I was curious to find out if students were making the
same progress as the previous year. While the coach was in a classroom I wanted to be sure
students would perform at least as well as they did last year. I wanted to know how the teacher
would respond to the literacy coach being part of their daily literacy block. Teacher growth was
demonstrated through the teacher’s achieving fidelity of implementation of the workshop model
and reporting of higher levels of confidence and comfort in the lab environment setting. Teacher-
efficacy was also revealed with the coach feeling confident in the teacher’s knowledge, skill, and
attitude towards the workshop model.
Definitions
Lucy Calkins Reading Units of Study (RUOS). This reading series was designed to
meet the rigor of the Common Core State Standards. It is a grade-by-grade curriculum that
includes methods for teaching reading skills and strategies in the narrative, opinion, and
informational reading (Calkins, 2015).
Lucy Calkins Writing Units of Study (WUOS). This writing series was designed to
meet the rigor of the Common Core State Standards. It is a grade-by-grade curriculum that
includes methods for teaching writing skills and strategies in the narrative, opinion, and
informational reading (Calkins, 2015).
Conferring. Conducting a discussion with students in a one-to-one setting where the
teacher determines what the student needs to practice. He/she then provides targeted instruction
for the student.
Concepts of Print. A student’s basic knowledge of how print works, such as
directionality, top to bottom, letters and words convey a message, pictures in a book match the
print, and books have a front and back (Fountas & Pinnell, 2011).
Phonemic Awareness. The ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual
sounds in words. A student's skill in phonemic awareness is a good predictor of later reading
success or difficulty.
Reading Workshop. Model of teaching where a minilesson lasting about 15 minutes is
taught to a whole group. Students then read at their independent level while the teacher works
with small groups of students or one-on-one.
The critical incident questionnaire. The CIQ is a single page questionnaire that was
given to the teacher at the end of the week. It was comprised of four questions, each of which
asked the teacher to write down precise details about her feelings regarding the coaching that
happened during the literacy block that week. Its purpose was not to ask her what she liked or
did not like. Instead, it got her to think reflectively about the actual happenings and her feelings
toward our collaboration.
Lab Classroom. The literacy coach and classroom teacher work all school year
collaboratively. Coach modeled and observed during reader’s and writer's workshop, spelling,
interactive read alouds, and shared reading and writing.
Coaching Cycle. An opportunity for teacher and literacy coach to work closely together
planning, rehearsing, and teaching around a predetermined goal. Following a lesson, the teacher
and coach will debrief on observations.
Reading First School. A federal K-3 education program directed by the federal
Department of Education and mandated under the No Child Left Behind Act. This program
requires that schools receiving funds from a Reading First grant use a scientifically based reading
instruction, and hire coaches who can assist teachers in learning the newest instructional
practices. Coaches help teachers analyze data to drive instruction (US Department of Education,
2014).
Limitations
Although this study was designed with the intentions of finding accurate and reliable
results, several limitations may have impacted the results that were attained. One limitation of
this study was time. The data from the action research project were gathered during the first
trimester of school. It is unknown whether the results of the study would have been altered had
there been additional time to see the teacher’s progression through the change process. An
additional limiting factor was the reality that I was a first-time researcher and a relatively new
literacy coach. The study was completed during my second year of coaching.
Review of Literature
Introduction
The role of the literacy coach grew exponentially in the past 15 years with the induction
of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, an act that held schools accountable for
reading and math growth as measured by high-stakes test scores (U.S. Department of Education,
2002). Various studies have been compiled on whether or not literacy coaches make a difference
in student reading achievement. Literacy coaching, however, begins with the teacher. This
researcher conducted a case study on the effectiveness of the literacy coach as a practice change
agent.
The researcher sought out scholarly literature on coaching as a practice change agent.
The researcher found no studies specifically on coaching as a change agent, however, limited
current studies were found on the effectiveness of literacy coaching on teaching instruction,
student achievement, and teacher efficacy. Therefore, the findings of the search, which has a
potential impact on this study, were grouped into the following categories: impact of teacher
efficacy, improvement in student achievement, and importance of job-embedded professional
development.
The Impact of Literacy Coaching on Teacher Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the personal belief that a teacher can perform tasks related to teachings,
such as enhancing student achievement, classroom management, and explicit instructional
strategies. When a teacher has high professional self-efficacy, he/she believes that they can
teach any child and empower that child to meet high standards and rigorous expectations. This
researcher found that a teacher’s efficacy can affect student achievement (Shidler, 2008).
Shidler (2008) conducted a three-year study on the impact of time spent coaching for
teacher efficacy on student achievement. Three hundred and sixty students in 12 classrooms
participated in the study. Seven of the classrooms were assigned a literacy coach. Shidler
(2008) discovered in year one, where the coaches focused primarily on instructional efficacy and
teaching methods, teachers were able to move from theory to practice encouraging self-efficacy
in teachers. In years two and three a more significant focus was on student outcomes. Shidler
(2008) revealed that the greater the teacher-efficacy, the greater the attitudes around teaching, the
higher students achieve. Higher levels of confidence equal a positive attitude (Shidler, 2008).
Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek (2013) agreed that the ability of a teacher to see him/herself
as capable of providing skilled instruction increases teacher’s self-efficacy.
Goal setting is one of the most common practices for teachers throughout the school year,
but do teachers set high standards for themselves and their students? Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb,
and Cheek (2013) conducted an ethnographic case study in four schools. The purpose of the
study was to examine how teachers change to meet instructional reform and teach a new program
with fidelity. Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek (2013) also looked at student achievement in
correlation with teacher willingness to change. This study was conducted in an equal number of
schools with and without Reading First funding. Teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire,
and a five-point Likert scale was used to desegregate the results. Observations and interviews
were also conducted. This study demonstrated that when teachers set high goals for themselves,
they were more likely to hold their students to high standards, take responsibility for the outcome
of student results, and procure more gains. More importantly, when student data was compared
it indicated that one of the reasons students were reading above grade level was because teachers
were implementing the new curriculum with fidelity. Similarly, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2001), in which the researchers tested many teacher efficacy scales, found that teacher efficacy
beliefs relate to openness to new ideas and a willingness to try new techniques to meet the needs
of their students, thus improving test scores. Teacher skill development is one way to enhance
teacher-efficacy. Literacy coaching is the key to teacher skill development (Abernathy-Dyer,
Ortlieb, & Cheek, 2013). One example of skill development is job-embedded professional
development.
Peer collaboration is not only another aspect of job-embedded professional development,
but it is also a way to advance teacher-efficacy. Peer collaboration allows teachers to learn in a
social environment (Abernathy et al., 2013). Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek (2013) also
discovered that teachers with high self-efficacy were more likely to keep their students on task,
hold all students to a higher standard not just high achieving students, but lower-ability students
as well, having a more significant impact on student achievement. In a mixed methods study,
Carlisle and Berebitsky (2011) examined the effectiveness of professional development in
regards to teacher effectiveness. The study was conducted with first-grade teachers who did and
did not work with literacy coaches who provided the professional development. Carlisle and
Berebitsky (2011) found that: (a) teacher collaboration alone did not consistently improve
instruction, (b) teacher’s attitudes did not differ towards professional development between
coaching and non-coaching teachers, and (c) student gains between fall and spring were greater
in the classroom where there was a literacy coach. Teachers who did collaborate stated that they
rarely used the peer advice. Carlisle and Berebitsky (2011), therefore, concluded that to enhance
teacher-efficacy and improve student achievement, a literacy coach should be hired to provide
professional development and individual support, because many educators struggle with
collaborating with peers to determine learning needs.

Building teacher efficacy can transform school climate and student achievement. There
are many ways in which coaches can build efficacy in staff. One specific way is to discuss
efficacy. Help teachers to understand what efficacy is and what it means to student achievement
(Lyons & Pinnell, 2001). Unfortunately, there is no one way that works for all schools. The
coach must design professional development that relates to the goals and vision of the school and
works to maintain a positive and productive climate (Carlisle & Berebitsky, 2011)
The process of building teacher-efficacy needs to be a joint undertaking between the
principal and the literacy coach (Perkins & Cooter, 2013). In their mixed methods evaluation of
teacher efficacy through professional development, Perkins and Cooter (2013) discovered that
when the teachers and principals were ‘on the same page’ principals found new ways to support
teachers in their classrooms and accordingly, teacher and staff efficacy grew to a new level.
Student achievement increased when principals were involved and helped teachers learn how to
use a new curriculum (Carlisle & Berebitsky, 2011). Principals have a huge influence on
teachers and their self-efficacy when they are involved in collaboration and providing leadership
and support.
An understanding of adult learning theory is important to be familiar with for anyone
who chooses to be a literacy coach or principal. Andragogy is adult education (Froelich & Puig,
2010). Literacy coaches practice andragogy daily when they teach and learn alongside their
adult peers. Self-efficacy is a strong belief that a teacher can be successful and andragogy is an
examination and evaluation of those ideas. Spelman and Bell (2011) stated that
“Unless learning is transformed through expanded awareness, critical reflection,
validating discourse, and reflective action adult learners remain focused on the merely
access information. Transformational learning, however, seeks changes in the core

assumptions, beliefs, and ways in which individuals make sense of learning experiences.
(p. 150)
Learning to be an effective teacher takes time and practice. Modeling from a literacy
coach can help, but it should not stop there (Puig & Froelich, 2011). What is important is the
coaching conversations that follow any modeling or observation. During this conversation,
feedback is given, and teaching is refined to meet the specific needs of the students. Instructional
scaffolding is important for students and adults when practicing andragogy. Coaches need to
monitor teacher critical thinking and progress through a change. While discussing student
achievement, the coach would directly connect teaching strategies to improve instruction
(Gibson, 2011; Dixon, 2015). Gibson (2011) researched a small urban public school where
literacy coaching and on-going professional development was recently implemented. Gibson
(2011) focused on kindergarten through second-grade teachers, coaches, and students. Gibson
(2011) also discovered that when coaching involved conversations that included reflective
practice and instructional planning, teacher efficacy was increased.
Dixon (2015) also found that teachers’ confidence grew when coaches provided feedback
and held debriefing conversations following observation. Dixon (2015) discovered that coaching
was helpful in improving teacher performance and an increase in the implementation of the new
instructional practices allowing for an improvement in self-efficacy. Pomerantz and Pierce
(2013) also revealed that professional development alone can change teacher knowledge, but
have little effect on teachers’ efficacy. The core aspects of coaching, observation, modeling,
feedback, and collaboration, can bring about the profound change needed for teacher-efficacy
(Dixon, 2015; Pomerantz & Pierce, 2013).

As literacy coaches try to foster teacher efficacy, create a professional development
program, and support teachers in classrooms, it is important to remember what precisely adult
learners need in comparison to children. For example, teachers are self-motivated learners.
Another thing to be aware of is the Conscious Competence Learning Matrix, and each of the
stages teachers went through on their way to being proficient and have a strong sense of self-
efficacy (Gibson, 2011; Dixon, 2015).
Literacy Coaching on Student Achievement
One primary question posed to teachers and other stakeholders in a school district is how
does a teacher improve student academic outcomes and develop proficient readers? Teachers
want a proven strategy to help their students make appropriate gains. Where do teachers turn
when a student is falling behind or needs to be challenged? All of these questions and more can
be discussed with the literacy coach who is the building literacy expert.
Wonder-McDowell, Reutzel, and Smith (2011) conducted a study where coaches met
with teachers to provide training on effective instructional practices and review data on students
not progressing as quickly as desired. Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) discovered that providing
students with Tier I interventions or supplemental instruction will produce student gains when
aligning additional reading instruction to the core classroom instruction or whole group
instruction. In this study, there was a positive effect on student’s growth in reading, word attack,
and decoding skills, and specifically on reading comprehension specifically on their sight word
recognition (Wonder-McDowell et al., 2011; Spelman & Bell, 2011). Students’ comprehension
skills were also positively affected by aligning additional instruction with the whole group
instruction. The supplemental reading instruction should mirror the core curriculum in the
manner of scope and sequence for best results. The specific intervention strategies that mirror
whole group instruction can be ascertained through the guidance of a literacy coach. Wonder-
McDowell et al. (2011) go on to state that students achieved statistically significant results in
many areas of reading such as fluency, decoding, and comprehension. These studies also
examined the impact on coaching and professional development on student achievement. It was
reported that the students achieved higher reading scores when professional development was
combined with coaching (Wonder-McDowell et al., 2011; Spelman & Bell, 2011; Gibson, 2011).
Spelman and Bell (2011) discovered that pre and post reading assessment scores
significantly improved when teachers worked directly with a literacy coach, compared to
professional development alone. Spelman and Bell (2011) also concluded that when teachers
work alongside a literacy coach, student growth rate exceeded target growth rate in fluency and
phonemic segmentation. It was also discovered that when teachers work directly with a literacy
coach, the majority of students met or closed the achievement gap within two years (Wonder-
McDowell et al., 2011; Spelman & Bell, 2011; Dixon, 2015).
When teachers were asked how they perceived student growth, Ferguson (2014) said
teachers stated that they felt higher student reading scores were achieved with the induction of
the literacy coaching program in their school. Ferguson (2014) went on to say that this
observation was backed up by the student’s Developmental Reading Assessment scores.
There is ever increasing research to support the fact that literacy coaching does indeed
influence student achievement (Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, & Zigmond. 2010). Bean et
al. (2010) investigated how literacy coaches in Reading First schools had an impact on student
achievement through the improvement of classroom instruction. This study demonstrated a
correlation between time spent coaching and student achievement. Bean et al. (2010) described
three levels of coaching: level one was relationship building, in levels two and three the coach
focused more on teaching practices, with level three being a great in-depth focus on specific
teaching strategies. This can only be accomplished, however, if teachers are open and willing to
change or adjust current teaching practices. How to meet the needs of the diverse learners can
and should be discussed with the literacy coach during a coaching session (Perkins & Cooter,
2013; Bean et al., 2010; Ferguson, 2014). The quality of the education contributes to student
learning getting teachers to examine and improve their practices is one of the first steps to
improving student outcomes (Bean et al., 2010).
Kissel, Marz, Algozzine, and Stover (2011), from the University of North Carolina,
found that a huge missed opportunity existed in the role of a literacy coach: discussions with
parents. When conducting their research with early childhood literacy coaches, Kissel et al.
(2011) noted that parents were unaware of how the literacy coach impacts student learning.
Coaches encourage self-reflection and change. Parents need to be aware of how change happens
as a result of the coach’s work. Development of proficient readers is not a job done in isolation.
It takes practice, changes, and learning, and the effect of literacy coaching on teachers and
student improvement is no longer an unproven practice.
Importance of job-embedded professional development
Ippolito (2009) explained that the literacy coach could sometimes find it difficult to fit
into a particular role within the school. A coach is someone who is tasked with generating
change, but yet, they do not have any administrative powers backing their suggestions. Coaches
are continually coaxing, pushing, and pulling teachers to build strategic skills to increase student
achievement. Ippolito (2009) conducted a study in an urban East Coast school district where
data was gathered from 57 literacy coaches. Ippolito (2009) wanted to ascertain how literacy
coaches encourage teachers to implement instructional practices. He discovered that coaches

who learn to shift between responsive and directive activities through professional development
and the modeling of lessons for teachers and groups of teachers saw greater shifts in teacher’s
instructional practices (Ippolito, 2009). Pomerantz and Pierce (2013) discovered in their
research on how literacy coaches impacted student achievement in a failed urban school.
Pomerantz and Pierce (2013) discovered that there is a fine line between being directive and
responsive to coaching. Pomerantz and Pierce went on to say that coaches are the experts who
guide teachers through the implementation of a new program and identifies areas where a teacher
needs the help of a literacy expert. When coaches are tasked with directives, it can lead to
anxiety and resentment between the teacher and coach. When coaches have the opportunity to
listen, co-teach, and reassure teachers they are on the right track; there is less of a chance of
resistance (Ippolito, 2009). Coaches also need to remember that conversations need to go
beyond just literacy and the classroom to build and maintain relationships (Pomerantz & Pierce,
2013).
Elish-Piper and L’Allier (2011) found that there was a correlation between the amount of
time a coach spends with a teacher and student reading gains. Elish- Piper, and L’Allier (2011)
conducted their research in a large urban school district with a population of 95.7% minority, and
79% of the students were considered low income. They tested basic early literacy skills such as
phonemic awareness, letter recognition, and sight words. Throughout the study, a literacy coach
provided job-embedded professional development through modeling, conferring, and
observations. Elish-Piper and L’Allier (2011) stated that “On average, students at each grade
level made statistically significant gains” (p 93). Stephens et al. (2011) indicated that schools
that employ a literacy coach were more likely to meet adequate yearly progress. When a coach
provides monthly professional development to an entire school, and explicit instruction based on
a teacher's needs in a classroom, teaching improves, and student achievement goes up (Stephens
et al., 2011). Teachers feel understood. The coaching is intentional, ongoing and systematic.
Change is difficult. Most people agree that it is the teacher and the methods that produce
competent readers (Pomerantz & Pierce, 2013). Professional development is a fundamental
component of teacher change. Job-embedded professional development in the form of in-class,
one-on-one literacy coaching can improve teaching and increased professional dialogue
(Pomerantz & Pierce, 2013). There must first be trust and commitment from both parties. A
reciprocal relationship must be established.
In the Atteberry and Bryk (2011) study, “Analyzing Teacher Participation in Literacy
Coaching Activities,” it was found that not only professional development days and classroom
instruction were effective, but coaching sessions were as well. When a literacy coach provides
coaching sessions or cycles, they are more likely to meet with all teachers in a building (Spelman
& Bell, 2011). When teachers are exposed to coaching, efficacy, and student reading scores are
improved. Atteberry and Bryk (2011) also noted that although sessions were scheduled with
teachers twice per month daily, teaching duties and life sometimes got in the way of these
meetings taking place.
One aspect of job-embedded professional development is when the coach comes into the
classroom for precise learning with adults and children. If a teacher wants to learn a new
technique or the district adopts a new program, a monthly meeting alone is not going to do it.
The difficult task then is to transfer learning from the monthly meeting into the classroom. With
job-embedded professional development, a coach is right there to guide teachers in putting
theory into practice (Shidler, 2008).
Conclusion
When educators partake in the same teaching style they have for the past five to ten years
and have not seen student growth change; it is time to make the change themselves. The literacy
coach is the primary tool to help educator get out of the cycle of doing the same thing over and
over. We want different results for our students. Parents and other stake-holders demand results
(Shidler, 2008). Literacy coaching offers job-embedded professional learning for teachers to
improve student reading. Coaches also help teachers develop positive attitudes to grow toward
self-efficacy. Coaches and teachers work in a partnership around instruction and student data.
Teachers are encouraged to self-reflect, and modeling strategies are all done to increase student
achievement (Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011).
Although asking teachers to change their practice is difficult, it is crucial for student
achievement. Teachers must be allowed to move through the learning process at their own pace
while making a shift in learning. It is imperative for the literacy coach to understand this so they
can guide a teacher as a mentor would rather than as a director (Walpole & Blamey, 2008).
The coach’s role in building teacher efficacy and fostering student achievement led this
researcher to further reflect on the primary importance of the role. Though preparing for and
carrying out a lab classroom can be tedious for both the teacher and coach, it was worthwhile to
work regarding learning outcome. Since studies objectively measuring the change in teacher-
efficacy and student growth were found, this researcher wanted to study further how she can
make the same impact in her school.
Methods
Introduction
This mixed methods, action research case study, examined the effectiveness of the
literacy coach as a practice change agent for a teacher starting a new literacy program. The
researcher also investigated: (a) how having a literacy coach in the classroom impacted teacher
efficacy, (b) the extent to whether working with a literacy coach improved student achievement,
and (c) the importance of job-embedded professional development. The researcher did not use
an attitude survey in the previous school year, 2016-2017, while working with a teacher on the
new Writing Units of Study (WUOS). This year, a survey was utilized to keep in mind how
teachers progress through the learning process.
Participants
The participants of this study were the classroom teacher and the students. The
population for this study was a kindergarten class of seventeen; six females, eleven males, four
of the students are English Learners located in a large urban school district in Northeast
Wisconsin. Sixty-four percent of the class receives Free or Reduced Lunch.
Procedure
The researcher’s specific goal of this action research was to investigate the effectiveness
of the literacy coach as a practice change agent. This type of action research was a case study.
Data were collected using a variety of quantitative and qualitative instruments. The independent
variable was the teacher using the Lucy Calkins Reading Units of Study. The dependent
variables were student literacy assessment scores, phonemic awareness scores, concepts of print
and comprehension, and feedback from the Critical Incident Survey conducted weekly by the
teacher. Students participated in a 60-minute reading workshop.
This study was completed during the first trimester of the 2017-2018 school year. Data
were collected over an eight-week period. The research tools that were utilized included a
Critical Incident Survey that the teacher filled out and a Classroom Observation Guide. The
researcher also used a collection of student assessment data which included a quantitative data
collection of the time the coach spent in the classroom, and anecdotal notes.
Over the course of the first RUOS, We Are Readers; the teacher completed the weekly
Critical Incident Survey so the researcher could determine how the teacher felt towards the
coaching and learning process (Appendix A). As an educator going through this process, there
should not be feelings of despondency, bitterness, or neglect, but rather feelings of partnership,
collaboration, and motivation. Because the literacy coach was a strong mentor that guided for
improvement of learning and instruction. Shidler (2009) mentioned that teachers must be
allowed to progress through the learning progress at their own speed. This Critical Incident
Survey allows the researcher to gauge the speed to which she can push the teacher to try different
strategies.
Students were assessed within the first two weeks of the school year using the annual
kindergarten assessments. Assessments were given using Fountas and Pennell’s Early Literacy
Survey. The evaluations consisted of concepts of print, upper and lower-case letter
identification; sight words list 1, phonological awareness: initial sounds, blending, segmenting,
and rhyming (Appendix B-H).
The case study also included videotaping of the monthly post observation coaching
conversation. Discussions were based on the Reader’s Workshop Observation Guide (Appendix
I) in 2016, the school district Teaching and Learning Coaches created the guide based on the
work of Lucy Calkins and Fountas and Pinnell. The researcher then transcribed the conversation
and compared it to the critical incident survey (Appendix A) for anomalies and irregularities.
The hope was that the teacher’s positive attitude and motivation to learn the new curriculum
would increase through the collaborative process and evidence would appear in both critical
incident survey and conversations.
This study also included quantitative data around the time spent in the classroom
(Appendix J). This data was further broken down and desegregated into minutes spent modeling
a lesson, and minutes spent in the classroom daily. The idea was that the more time a coach
spent in a classroom, the deeper teacher’s learning becomes. By the end of the school year,
2017-2018, the lab classroom teacher will be an exemplary teacher that can host observers and
help peers learn and improve instruction.
This study included a beginning of the year survey (Appendix K) to determine how much
professional development the teacher received before the lab classroom experience. The
researcher looked for any times that the teacher met with a literacy coach before the beginning of
the year. Any collaboration times spent in group professional learning, and discussions around
the RUOS. Any times the teacher met with a literacy coach through a one-to-one conference was
vital to discover how much coaching the teacher had already received in order to establish the
reliability of the findings.
Data Analysis
Instruction and data analysis took place at the beginning of Unit One and through Unit
Two of the Calkins RUOS. The quantitative reading data collected were analyzed to determine
if students were on track to meet the first trimester benchmarks (Appendix L). The evaluations
consisted of concepts of print, upper and lower-case letter identification, sight words list 1, and
phonological awareness, initial sounds, blending, segmenting, and rhyming (Appendix B-H). All
data were presented in either graphics or narrative form.

Results
Introduction
The purpose of this action research was to investigate the effectiveness of the literacy
coach as a practice change agent, and ways in which a literacy coach can guide teachers through
a new literacy program. This study took place within a class of seventeen kindergarten students
from the beginning of September through the middle of November 2017. For the duration of the
study, three research questions were investigated: (a) how will having a literacy coach in the
classroom impact teacher efficacy; (b) to what extent will working with a literacy coach improve
student achievement; and (c) what is the importance of job-embedded professional development
on teachers? The independent variable was the teacher using the Lucy Calkins Reading Units of
Study. The dependent variables were student literacy assessment scores, phonemic awareness
scores, and concepts of print, along with feedback from the Critical Incident Survey conducted
weekly by the teacher.
The first sub-question examined the impact of job-embedded literacy coaching on the
teacher’s efficacy. During the study, the researcher used a Likert scale to quantify the data.
These questions were designed to gauge the teacher’s confidence in implementing the new
reading curriculum. Each week, the teacher gave a score of 1-5 based on how confident the
teacher felt toward the coaching experiences that week. The primary purpose was to have the
teacher reflect on the collaboration and share thoughts and concerns (Appendix M).
This survey was used to alter the researcher’s approach to coaching. For example, during
the week of September 22, 2017, the teacher stated that “We did not spend much time reflecting
together this week. Should we set up some time to go over kids’ progress or our teaching?” I
then adjusted my coaching, and we met weekly.
Literacy Coaching on Student Achievement
The second sub-question examined the impact of literacy coaching on student
achievement. During the study, the students were exposed to early literacy skills universally
taught using the Lucy Calkins Reading Units of Study. Each of the sixteen students were
assessed before teaching and again post unit instruction. Assessments involved rhyming,
concepts of print, initial sounds, blending sounds, segmenting sounds, the twenty-five sight
words specific for kindergarten students, and letter recognition. The figures below demonstrate
student growth during the teaching of this unit.
Figures 2-4 show that all students made growth. When the researcher dug deeper into the
data, it was discovered that many of the same students who were below grade level expectations
in September were also below in November with the exception of one to two students. The
researcher also discovered that many of these same students were below grade level across
assessments.
During the gathering of data, the researcher continually kept anecdotal notes. The
anecdotal notes corresponded with the quantitative data. The notes allowed the researcher to
suggest additional interventions to be given to this small group of students. This, in turn,
allowed the students to be on track to meet the middle and end of year benchmark goals.
12
10
Number of Questions
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Students
Pre Test Post Test
Figure 1. Assessing student knowledge of how print works.
Pre Post
30
25
20
Number of Letters
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Students
Figure 2. Recognizing uppercase letters.

30
25
Number of Letters
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Students
Pre Post
Figure 3. Recognizing lowercase letters.
For data gathered on initial letter sounds; matching pictures with the same beginning
sound, only three students were proficient, and twelve students scored a zero on the pre-test.
When the students were given the post-test, fifteen out of seventeen students scored 8/8, two
students scored 7/8, and one student scored a 1/8. The same three students scored proficient on
the rhyming sounds pre-assessment, and the remaining twelve students scored a zero. When
students were given the post rhyming sounds test, eleven students scored 10/10, three students
scored 9/10, and three students scored below 6.
The Blending sounds and segmenting sounds assessments, each student scored a zero on
the pre-test. The post-assessment was given in blending sounds, and all the students scored a
two or greater which is considered on target for November. One student scored 10/10. When the
post-assessment was given in segmenting sounds, all seventeen students scored two or above
three students scored 10/10.
Students were also given a pre and post test on the twenty-five kindergarten sight words.
On the pre-test, one student knew 11/25 sight words and the remaining sixteen knew zero. When
the post-test was given, ten out of seventeen students knew 10/25 sight words, which is
considered proficient for November. Six students knew between nine and seven out of the
twenty-five sight words and one student knew five sight words.
The third and final sub-question examined the importance of job-embedded professional
development on teacher’s efficacy. In this study, the researcher used questionnaires which were
divided into five sub questions. The questions were both open-ended and closed-ended. A direct
correlation was made between the time the researcher was in the classroom coaching, to the
higher confidence in applying new learning by the teacher. The time spent in class was
measured in minutes, then averaged into hours. This data showed that the average amount of
time spent in class is 40 minutes. However, the level of confidence was based on the teacher’s
response, which gave an average of 4, which means that application of new skills in teaching
increases the teacher’s confidence to an average extent. The section only involved one
participant, which was the classroom teacher, who explained how professional development had
impacted her teaching. The primary purpose of the study was to find out how professional
development leads to teacher’s efficacy. This is shown in (Appendix M and N) meaning the time
spent in class, and the level of confidence, is correlated.
Figure 5 demonstrates the number of minutes the researcher actually spent in the
classroom compared to the number of hours that were scheduled. Many factors contributed to
the researcher being pulled out of the classroom such as meetings, coaching cycles with other
teachers, and being called on to be a substitute. When Figures 1 and 5 are compared, there is a
direct correlation between how confident the teacher is feeling at the beginning of the year and
the amount of time the coach is in the classroom.
50
45
45
40
41
35
35 35
30
Hours
25 28 27
20
15
10
0
Scheduled Actual Scheduled Actual Scheduled Actual
September October November
Figure 4. Comparison of schedule coaching time to actual time spent in the classroom.
Discussion
As the literacy coach in my building, I have always struggled with getting invited into
classrooms. This, I feel, was due to teachers not recognizing the value in participating in
coaching cycles or a year-long learning lab. It is difficult to have authentic conversations
constructed on student learning and teaching that are built on observations if I cannot be in the
classroom. Learning is an active process. When the teacher and coach work together, new
learning can take place through conversations. This is a constructivist view of learning that
works with students as well as teachers. Reflective teaching is central to clarifying one’s
understanding and a way to make sense of a vast amount of data teachers must look at daily.
Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, and Cheek’s 2013 study discovered that job-embedded professional
development with a literacy coach increases not only teacher efficacy, but student achievement
as well.
During the 2016-2017 school year, I noticed an inconsistency in teacher self-efficacy
skills. For example, some teachers struggled with student engagement and classroom
management, while others struggled with instructional strategies, differentiating to meet the
needs of students, and increased student engagement. During this same year, along with many
other coaches, I received numerous hours of training with the district Literacy Director around
literacy and the art of coaching. We were encouraged to engage in authentic conversations with
teachers as a way to help them refine their craft. My goal was to get teachers to work toward
increasing student achievement with coaching from me, the literacy coach. This research has
helped me answer that question along with three others.
As I reflected on my first year of coaching, I determined there were at least three areas
that I needed to research: (1) teacher efficacy, (2) student engagement, and (3) professional
development, and how as a literacy coach I effect each of these areas. Also, how can I change
my practice to help teachers develop and expand their conceptual knowledge in a way that helps
them learn from their own teaching? I used my areas of concern to frame my subtopics for this
research.
The first question examined was how literacy coaching impacted teacher efficacy.
Within my school, teacher efficacy was an issue along with job burnout and weariness. Teachers
felt that outside factors played too significant a role in what they could accomplish. I wondered
if this was an excuse or a lack of efficacy. First, I needed to determine the feelings of classroom
teachers towards teaching in my study. From a conversation before the start of school and the
efficacy questionnaire, I determined that her self-efficacy was a solid neutral – neither highly
confident nor very unconfident. The goal I set for myself then was to move her to highly
confident.
As the study progressed, she filled out the Critical Incident survey each Friday. Over the
weekend, I read it then adjusted my coaching based on what the teacher had written. For
example, I realized that the teacher was eager to dig in and learn immediately. I recognized I
was able to push her thinking to try different strategies with the students immediately. Most
teachers take a few weeks to warm up to the idea of a coach in their classroom full time; this
teacher welcomed it.
The teacher and I really dug into the student data. We compared what we saw in daily
work to the formative observation notes we took daily. By triangulating the data in this way, we
were able to individualize our teaching. This allowed for small groups to be created with
students who shared the same academic needs. We also discovered that students were excelling
on the Early Literacy Behaviors which in turn allowed for more confidence during reading.
Another benefit to the Critical Incident Survey was that after analyzing the data, I
realized that when the teacher’s confidence dropped, so did the amount of time I was spending in
the classroom. I was being pulled for subbing in other classrooms. I also had a number of
meetings out of my building at the beginning of the year. The beginning of the year is as critical
for teachers as it is for students, and to set the year off on a positive note I needed to be in the
classroom more. I realized that I could not control the times I have to substitute due to illness.
However, I can talk to the district Literacy Director about not scheduling meetings in September
to give coaches a chance to build a trusting relationship with their lab classroom teacher.
This year was the first year I conducted classroom walk-throughs. During this time, I
tried to pay particular attention to 1:1 conferring. Due to my research and discussions with the
teacher, I was able to notice that teachers who had a strong self-efficacy were more emotionally
supportive and gave constructive feedback, versus teachers who had low self-efficacy had
difficulty complimenting then deciding on what skill to focus on to teach. While coaching for
conferring it was helpful to have the teacher observe me and take notes on what she saw. We
then discussed what she noticed and any questions she had. The teacher was then able to try out
the new strategies we had discussed. Following a few days of this, I noticed the teacher being
more excited to confer and her comments toward the students were much more positive.
Similarly, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) tested many teacher efficacy scales and
found that teacher efficacy beliefs related to openness to new ideas. Along with a willingness to
try new techniques to meet the needs of their students improved test scores. Teacher skill
development is one way to enhance teacher-efficacy. Literacy coaching is the key to teacher
skill development (Abernathy-Dyer, Ortlieb, & Cheek, 2013). One example of skill
development is job-embedded professional development. The classroom teacher I worked with
grew in her craft through job-embedded professional development.
The Effect of Literacy Coaching on Student Achievement
The second sub-question I examined was the effect of my coaching on student
achievement. For a student to be a successful and proficient reader, early literacy skills must be
taught in kindergarten. The early literacy skills critical for reading are concepts of print, upper
and lower case letter recognition, matching initial sounds, rhyming, blending, and segmenting.
These skills are not taught all at once but over few months. These skills must be carefully
monitored for mastery. If a student is struggling, interventions are done until mastery of each
skill.
Effective instructional practices and triangulation of data on students are also critical. As
the literacy coach, it is my responsibility to be an expert and provide training for teachers around
teaching literacy skills and conducting interventions. In the study conducted by Wonder-
McDowell et al. (2001), it was discovered that providing students with Tier I interventions or
supplemental instruction allowed students to align reading instruction to the core classroom
instruction or whole group instruction.
The students in my research entered kindergarten at various stages. Immediately, I
noticed that four out of the 17 students would need intervention strategies. Due to the fact this
was a lab classroom, I was that one who began teaching. The classroom teacher observed and
took notes. I started with upper and lowercase letter identification. Once this was close to
mastery, I added concepts of print. During poetry readings, I was able to teach where to start
reading and directionality. I was also able to ask students to find letters and simple sight words.
During the reading of poems, we also worked on fluency, recognizing that groups of letters made
words, and the meaning of punctuation. These critical skills are taught universally in the whole
group. When reading with students, I can ask some of the same questions. If students are
struggling, I can provide interventions in small groups.
In two independent studies conducted by Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) and Spelman
and Bell (2011), it was discovered that there was a positive effect on student’s growth in reading,
word attack, and decoding skills when interventions were aligned with the whole group
instruction. I experienced a similar occurrence in the students participating in my study when I
aligned my early literacy skill interventions with whole group teaching. Instead of teaching a
different skill, I focused on the same skills taught in whole group. For example, if I was teaching
rhyming whole group, I played rhyming intervention games with students in small groups. To
differentiate, I based difficulty on students’ need.
When analyzing the post early literacy skills data, I noticed that many of the students
were already close to the end of the year expectations for blending and segmenting. These are
higher level skills, and because they are developed throughout the school year, they are only
introduced through universal instruction. I believed that this was because the Lucy Calkins
RUOS and WUOS were taught with fidelity along with skills that were taught the whole group
were also taught in small intervention groups. Struggling students were able to progress at the
same rate as their more advanced peers. The teacher and I also triangulated the early literacy
data, and by doing that, we were able to see growth in segmenting and blending sounds earlier.
There is ever increasing research to support the fact that literacy coaching does indeed
influence student achievement (Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, & Zigmond. 2010). My study
is also a demonstration of the correlation between time spent coaching and student achievement.
During this study, I focused more on teaching practices with the implementation of new literacy
resources. This provied successful because the teacher was open and willing to change or adjust
current teaching practices. The change in teaching practices led to increased student
achievement in all early literacy areas.
For my third question, I examined the importance of job-embedded professional
development. Before the first day of school, I had the teacher fill out a questionnaire (Appendix
M). In this survey, I wanted to know the teacher’s experience with job-embedded professional
development. She stated in the survey that she had worked directly with a literacy coach in the
past. She had been involved in professional development around the Lucy Calkins WUOS but
not the RUOS.
During my research, I found that job-embedded professional development was a
significant way to build strategic skill, which lead to increased student achievement. This
correlates with Ippolito’s (2009) research. The study revealed that active and directive coaching
of teachers, within the classroom, led to better instructional practices by teachers.
To be an effective change agent, a coach must be in the classrooms for the modeling of
lessons and strategic thinking following observations. As a coach, I must be able to urge and
counsel teachers to be more self-reflective and think about how their teaching decisions impact
student learning. During this study, the teacher and I often met to discuss student growth and
brainstorm different intervention strategies for struggling students and gifted students. When
looking at the comments from the Critical Incident Survey, I noticed that when I was unable to
meet to look at the student data, she felt frustrated; the teacher had become used to that
conversation and reflection time with me. When I was able to engage the teacher in her learning
around specific teaching strategies in the classroom setting, it enhanced her learning and enabled
her to utilize the strategies she was being coached on immediately.
I discovered that monthly literacy meetings with the teachers are not enough to learn and
develop new techniques and make the changes that are so critical for student growth. I believe
that is why direct involvement in classrooms teaching is significant. With job-embedded
professional development, a coach guides the teacher on turning theory into practice (Shidler,
2008). Within a school, job-embedded professional development helps teachers meet the needs
of their diverse learners.
Conclusion
The results of this study demonstrated that a literacy coach positively influenced teacher
self-efficacy and student achievement. Job-embedded professional development is critical for
positive change to take place. With the literacy coach working closely with the teacher, guiding
and encouraging self-reflection, a positive change can occur.
Conclusion and Future Implications
I embarked on this case study hoping to learn how I could improve my coaching practice.
I also sought to help teachers make constructive changes that positively impacted not only
student learning but how they view themselves as educators. What I learned reinforced what I
have always believed: to see positive changes for students, job-embedded professional learning
is critical.
Importance of the Study
When educators carry out the same teaching style for years and have not seen student
growth change or change for the worse, it calls for changes. The literacy coach is the primary
tool to help educators escape the cycle of doing the same thing over and over expecting different
results. The literacy coach offers job-embedded professional learning for teachers to improve
student literacy skills. Coaches also help teachers develop positive attitudes to grow toward self-
efficacy. Coaches and teachers work in a partnership around instruction and student data, using
the data for intentional teaching. Through job-embedded professional learning, the modeling of
strategies is done to increase teaching practices and student achievement. It also encourages
teachers to self-reflect and makes changes based on this reflection.
Although asking teachers to change their practice is difficult, it is crucial for student
achievement. Teachers must be allowed to move through the learning process at their own pace
while making shifts in their learning. This study allowed me to understand this so I can guide a
teacher as a mentor.
The coach’s role in building teacher efficacy and fostering student achievement led this
researcher to further reflect on the primary importance of the role. Though preparing for and
carrying out a lab classroom can be tedious for both the teacher and coach, it was worthwhile to
work on achieving specific learning outcomes. Since studies objectively measuring the change
in teacher-efficacy and student growth were found, this researcher wanted to study further how
she can make the same impact in her school.
Lessons Learned
While the results of this study were limited to only one kindergarten class and one
teacher, I believe that I have learned important aspects about myself as a coach and the way
children learn, and just how far I can push a teacher’s learning. My study sample, although
small, included a wide variety of learners, form English Learners, students facing significant
learning challenges, to students working above grade level. The student’s growth in early
literacy skills and reading achievement indicate that the principles of high-quality teaching and
monitoring of skills are critical to learning.
If I were to conduct this study again, I would want to work with a teacher, with low self-
efficacy. I would like to apply the same strategies I have used with this teacher to move
someone else to higher self-efficacy. I would also like to videotape lessons for reflection
purposes.
Conducting this study was significant because it gave me the idea of restructuring the
teacher’s way of participating in a learning lab. The research findings show that literacy
coaching is essential to both students and teachers. Students better their reading skills while
teachers better their teaching skills and increase their confidence levels to be in a position to
manage all students.
Future Implications
Just as a teacher’s efforts to become a better educator does not end when I am not in their
classroom, my journey to improve my coaching practice does not end with the conclusion of this
study. I will continue to work with the teacher and students who participated in this study. I
plan to follow this class of kindergarten students through fifth-grade. I intend to use the critical
incident survey with all my lab classroom teachers. I feel the information gleamed from that
survey allowed me to adjust my coaching on a weekly basis.
In a broader sense, I hope to influence other coaches throughout my district by bringing
what I have learned about teacher efficacy, student learning, and job-embedded professional
learning. As literacy coaches in a large district, it is vital to refine and improve our practices
continually. As a literacy coach I have evolved from a co-learner to a lead-learner; and a role
model for teachers. Being a lead-learner means I present strategies to be reflective in everything
I do. The research I conducted will allow me to do just that with more credibility.
References
Abernathy-Dyer, J., Ortlieb, E., & Cheek, E. H., Jr. (2013). An analysis of teacher efficacy and
perspectives about elementary literacy instruction. Current Issues in Education, 16(3).
Atteberry, A., & Bryk, A. S. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in literacy coaching
activities. Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 356-382.
Bean, R. M., Draper, J. A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and
coaching in reading first schools. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114.
Calkins, L. (2015). A guide to the reading workshop: Primary grades. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Carlisle, J. F., & Berebitsky, D. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional
development. Reading & Writing, 24(7), 773-800. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9224-4
Dixon, J. (2015). Literacy coaching: Increasing teacher confidence and implementation of new
instructional practices. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 44(1), 15-22.
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.
Ferguson, K. A. (2014). How three schools view the success of literacy coaching: Teachers',
principals' and literacy coaches' perceived indicators of success. Reading Horizons, 53(1),
1-37.
Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S., (2011). Assessment forms: Benchmark assessment system 1.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibson, S. A. (2011). Coaching conversations: Enacting instructional scaffolding. Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 24(1), 5-20.

Ippolito, J. (2009). Investigating how literacy coaches understand and balance responsive and
directive relationships with teachers. CEEDER Yearbook, 45-66.
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. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.580207
Lyons, C. A.& Pinnell, G. S., (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to
professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Perkins, J. H., & Cooter, K. (2013). An investigation of the efficacy of one urban literacy
academy: Enhancing teacher capacity through professional development. Reading Horizons,
52(2), 181-209.
Pomerantz, F., & Pierce, M. (2013). "When do we get to read?" Reading instruction and literacy
coaching in a "failed" urban elementary school. Reading Improvement, 50(3), 101-117.
Puig, E. A., & Froelich, K. S. (2011). The literacy coach: Guiding in the right direction. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Shidler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student
achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 453-460. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-
0298-4
Spelman, M., & Bell, D. (2011). Transforming literacy instruction in urban settings: Combining
professional development and instructional coaching to improve student
achievement. College Reading Association Yearbook, 34,149-167.
Stephens, D., Morgan, D.N., DeFord, D.E., Donnelly, A., Hamel, E., Keith, K.J., Brink, D. A.,
Jonnson, R., Seaman, M., Young, J. Gallant, D.J., Hao, S., & Leigh, S.R. (2011). The
impact of literacy coaches on teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Literacy
Research. doi:10.1177/1086296X11413716.
Tschanen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
U.S. Department of Education, (2002). No child left behind: Elementary and secondary
education act (ESEA). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.
Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles.
Reading Teacher, 62(3), 222-231.
Wonder-McDowell, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. A. (2011). Does instructional alignment
matter?: Effects on struggling second graders' reading achievement. Elementary School
Journal, 112(2), 259-279.

Appendix A
Critical Incident Survey

Question Teacher
During this week: Response
When did you feel the most
supported?
When did you feel the least
supported?
What action or comment from me
did you find the most affirming
and helpful?
Highly Somewhat Very

I am feeling confident in applying Confident Neutral
Confident Unconfident Unconfident
the new teaching skills? 4 3
5 2 1
Appendix B
Concepts of Print
Appendix C
Letter Recognition: Upper and Lowercase Naming

Appendix D
Reading High-Frequency Words: 25 Words

Appendix E
Phonological Awareness: Initial Sounds

Appendix F
Phonological Awareness: Blending Words

Appendix G
Phonological Awareness: Segmenting Words

Appendix H
Phonological Awareness: Rhyming

Appendix I
RUOS Observation Guide
Reading Workshop Observation Guide

Goal: Support the strategic orchestration of the reading process
Look for evidence that: Notes
Preparation
Goal: Use procedures and assessments to create optimal conditions for learning
Routines and Procedures
 Materials are organized and easily accessible
 Uses the workshop framework (whole group, small group, 1:1 conferring, partnership)
Assessment
 Uses summative and formative assessments to guide their instruction (reading records,
performance assessments)
 Uses observation to adjust instruction (running records, conference notes, reading
responses)
Minilesson (8-15 minutes)
Goal: Provide explicit direct instruction in the skills, strategies, and habits of proficient readers
 Connects background knowledge/previous learning to new concept or piques students’
interest
 States the generative learning principle in simple, clear language along with its purpose
 Provides instruction using an appropriate method: demonstration, guided practice,
explicitly telling and showing an example or inquiry
 Uses anchor chart to mediate learning to support self-regulation
 Provides an opportunity for active engagement (Involves the readers in trying out the
principle at the carpet)
 Uses a link to summarize and help students think about how they can apply the learning
to their own reading
Reading/Conferring
Goal: Support students in developing a passion for reading and viewing themselves as readers
 Builds student engagement and self-regulation during independent work (independent
reading, responding to reading through drawing or writing, or center work)
 Confers with individual readers so that they have the opportunity to think and talk about
their reading, identify their plans, goals, and needs to receive individual instruction
 Uses records to guide and document the content of the conferences
 Pulls together small groups of children with similar needs
(guided reading, literature discussion, shared reading, etc.)
 Includes a mid-workshop teaching point that makes a relevant teaching point that has
wide implications, when applicable
Sharing
 Offers an opportunity for students to talk about their reading through celebrating work,
consolidating learning, or extending learning
--Calkins, L. (2015). A Guide to the Reading Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
--Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G.S. (2011). Proceedings from What Every School Leader Needs to Know about Good Literacy
Teaching and Effective Literacy Coaching: Center for Reading Recovery & Literacy Collaborative. Ohio: Lesley University.
Appendix J
Coaching Log
Trina Kerscher Kindergarten Coaching Log

2017-2018
Date Time Start Time Finish Total Comments
Appendix K
Professional Development/Efficacy Questionnaire
What is your experience with Professional Development

I have worked directly with a literacy Comments:
Yes No
coach in the past.
If yes, did the literacy coach hold one Comments:

to one discussions with you around Yes No
your teaching of the workshop model?
What type of professional development
One to
did you receive around the workshop Group
One
model?
Have you been involved in
Yes Yes No No
professional development around the
Reading Writing Reading Writing
Lucy Calking Units of Study?
What type of professional development
One to
did you receive around the RUOS or Group
One
WUOS?
Efficacy Questions
To what extent do you feel you can
manage your class with each student Highly Somewhat Very
Confident Neutral
working on personalized learning 4 3
5 2 1
targets?
How well can you instruct students in Highly Somewhat Very
Confident Neutral
early literacy skills? 4 3
5 2 1
Appendix L
Trimester One Kindergarten Benchmark

Sight Word ID
Initial Sounds
Instructional
Segmenting
Concepts of
Upper Case
Lower Case
Blending
Rhyming
Letters:
Letters:
Level
Print
F&P
Sept - ≥4 ≥10 ≥10 ≥0 ≥5 ≥0 ≥0 ≥5
Oct A ≥10 ≥15 ≥15 ≥3 7/8 ≥0 ≥0 ≥7
Nov B 10/10 20/26 20/26 ≥10 8/8 2/10 2/10 10/10
Dec. B 10/10 20/26 20/26 12/25 8/8 5/10 5/10 10/10
Jan. C 10/10 26/26 26/26 15/25 8/8 10/10 10/10 10/10
Appendix M
Professional Development Questionnaire

What is your experience with Professional Development

Comments: I was a lab classroom
one of the first years GB had
I have worked directly with a
Yes No literacy coaches. I have also done
literacy coach in the past.
mini coaching cycles with past
coaches to improve targeted skills.
If yes, did the literacy coach hold

Comments: It was 13 years ago,
one to one discussions with you
Yes No and the Comprehensive Literacy
around your teaching of the
Model was the district’s focus.
workshop model?
Comments: Also, self-exploration,

What type of professional
One to reading the Calkin’s Guide to
development did you receive Group
One Reading and Writing Workshops
around the workshop model?
really helped.
Have you been involved in

Yes Yes No No
professional development around
Reading Writing Reading Writing
the Lucy Calkins Units of Study?
Comments: The Teaching College

What type of professional
One to came to GB a few years ago. That
development did you receive Group
One was an amazing experience, and I
around the RUOS or WUOS?
learned a lot.
Efficacy Questions
To what extent do you feel you can
manage your class with each student Highly Somewhat Very
Confident Neutral
working on personalized learning 4 3
5 2 1
targets?
How well can you instruct students Highly Somewhat Very
Confident Neutral
in early literacy skills? 4 3
5 2 1
Appendix N
Critical Incident Survey Teacher Responses

Question Teacher
Response
During this week: 9/8/17
When did you feel the  Giving and assessing the writing prompts. It was great
most supported? talking through the different things we saw.
 Trina is a kind person overall, and I find her very
comfortable to work with.
 Flexibility with the fire drill.
When did you feel the This will be a tough question for me. I am optimistic and try to
least supported? see benefits in everything.
What action or comment Go, Go Writers!

from me did you find the
most affirming and
helpful?
I am feeling confident in
applying the new teaching Highly Somewhat Very
skills? Confident Neutral
4 3
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 9/15/17
When did you Trina was willing to try some of my behavior management ideas since this
feel the most is her first experience teaching kindergarten. She is teaching kids how to
supported? listen to the mini-lesson as well as teaching the calkins content
When did you the Irregularity of her schedule, lots going on in her job and the building
feel the least needs
supported?
What action or Not a lot of time for reflection this week

comment from
me did you
I am feeling
confident in Highly Somewhat Very
applying the Confident Neutral
new teaching 4 3
5 2 1
skills?
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 9/22/17
When did you feel I like how you make sure to have the share section of the workshop
the most which is something that is easily left off. I like how you pull out
supported? student work to showcase, and you have a teaching point for showing
that particular piece. The kids are always proud to share.
When did you feel I think I am a little confused about which part of the day you are in
the least the classroom. It seems like you come in at different times each day
supported? because of meetings in the building. However, I feel the
inconsistency is affecting classroom behavior. Writing workshop is
clear and consistent, but the students and I are not sure what your role
is when you come to other parts of the day which are inconsistent.
Can we clarify this, so it does not become awkward?
What action or We did not spend much time reflecting together this week. Should
comment from me we set up some time to go over kid’s progress or our teaching?
did you find the Metacognition is really important in my own practice, and I feel like I
most affirming and am missing out on the coaching experience when I do not hear what
helpful? you are thinking. I do value what you are thinking, and I want to hear
it to help myself become a better teacher.
I am feeling
confident in Somewhat Very
applying the new Highly Confident Confident Neutral
Unconfident Unconfident
teaching skills? 5 4 3
2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 9/29/17
When did you feel I really appreciate the consistency in the schedule this week. I liked
the most how you had a coaching paper to reflect on. I do enjoy watching you
supported? teach writing because you are doing all the parts of the workshop. FYI.
When the kindergartens are writing more, I would love to see writing
groups in kindergarten. I never could figure that out.
When did you feel I wish you would have shared some of your reflections on my
the least teaching.
supported?
Talking with other staff members, they do not always know what skills
they need to improve on (I can think of many in my teaching). When
you go to other classrooms, you may have to suggest areas they could
improve in. You are very welcome to suggest an area I can improve on
based on your reflections. You can help me get better in that area. That
would be very cool with me. I signed up for this to become a better
teacher with your help. I trust you. PS I do not mind hearing about the
parts that are going well too. Just like the kids, it is important to hear
both areas that are going well and areas that can get better.
What action or Still not much reflecting on my teaching

comment from me
did you find the
most affirming
and helpful?
I am feeling
applying the new Confident Neutral
teaching skills? 4 3
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 10/6/17
When did you feel the The whole week was truly wonderful. I greatly enjoyed
most supported? reflecting. Talking about what I saw with your conferences,
helped me think about my own conferencing. I even changed how
I conferenced by demonstrating with a mentor text and asking kids
to transfer the skills to their own book. That was awesome, and I
would not have made that change if we had not talked. I also
really appreciate bringing back something cool you saw in another
kindergarten room. Having the kids set quick goals for the day by
tapping the anchor chart was a great idea!
When did you feel the Nothing

least supported?
What action or comment When we were reflecting this week, you shared words I used in
from me did you find the my conferencing. Words I did not realize I even used, but you
most affirming and thought they were powerful. That was really reaffirming. Thank
helpful? you!
applying the new Highly Somewhat Very
teaching skills? Confident Neutral
4 3
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 10/13/17
When did you This was a great week. I truly enjoyed watching you teach the revising
feel the most lessons. Putting the stars on the anchor chart as a goal-setting tool was
supported? awesome. I definitely will do that next year. Using file folders for covers
was cool too. It was way less chaotic to publish a story this year.
When did you Nothing

feel the least
supported?
What action or Being worried when I was so sick this week. Thank you for caring!!!
comment from
me did you find
the most
affirming and
helpful?
I am feeling
confident in Somewhat Very
applying the Highly Confident Confident Neutral
Unconfident Unconfident
new teaching 5 4 3
2 1
skills?
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 10/20/17
When did you feel I really liked your shared reading lesson plans. You created mini-
the most supported? lessons similar to Calkins for this in-between unit and blended much-
needed phonics lessons into them. I hope I can keep a copy of your
plans for when I teach it next year :)
Also thanks for being flexible as I changed the schedule for center
rotations.
When did you feel Nothing

the least supported? Next week, I think we need to touch base on how the center rotations
are going and if we need to make any tweaks.
What action or I am excited to learn about the conferencing techniques you mentioned.
comment from me
did you find the Thanks for being a team player and helping me with the STAR testing
most affirming and during our meeting time. I really appreciated your help.
helpful?
I am feeling
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 10/27/17
When did you feel I am glad we found some time to talk about our new literacy
the most supported? schedule. I agree that things are really smooth and there is so much
active engagement in all parts of our morning. It is so exciting!!! I
think one area I have been skipping in the reading workshop is the
share which is a shame because it is so powerful. I was wondering
if you could help me with that for next week. Do you think you
could highlight one or two students you observed in private reading
applying COP right? Before snack time? It would need to be quick
because we are a little tight on time. Just a thought I had after we
talked. Of if you have another idea for us to focus our share time, let
me know.
When did you feel Nothing

the least supported?
What action or I love the little books you made to go with our big book. That is a
comment from me really cool idea, and I know the kinders LOVE them!!
did you find the You’re right we do need to find time for partner reading. I am so
most affirming and open to ideas, let me know if you can think of anything.
helpful?
I am feeling
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 11/3/17
When did you feel Everything is good

the most supported?
When did you feel Never

What action or I really enjoyed looking over the objectives for this unit and thinking
comment from me about our universal instruction. I was worried everything got off
did you find the track, but after looking at the knowledge/skills and reflecting,
most affirming and everything is right on track!!
helpful?
I am feeling
5 2 1
Question Teacher
Response
During this
week: 11/10/17
When did you feel I like how much you include in your shared reading lessons. Every
the most supported? day the kids are excited to read the big book, and they seem to just
know that you are going to teach them something new with the book.
When did you feel Never

What action or I really enjoyed looking over the objectives for this unit and thinking
comment from me about our universal instruction. I was worried everything got off
did you find the track, but after looking at the knowledge/skills and reflecting,
most affirming and everything is right on track!!
helpful?
I am feeling
5 2 1

Question Teacher
Response
During this week: 11/17/17
When did you feel the most I really enjoyed using this critical survey to help us “sync”
supported? our teaching styles, and I think every learning lab should do
something similar. It really helped me communicate my
needs and helped this be a very positive experience.
When did you feel the least Never

supported?
What action or comment Thank you for everything. I truly enjoy working with you!!!
from me did you find the
most affirming and helpful?
applying the new teaching Highly Somewhat Very
skills? Confident Neutral
4 3
5 2 1

Kerscher Research Paper July 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kerscher Research Paper July 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: THE LITERACY COACH AS A PRACTICE CHANGE AGENT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LITERACY COACH AS A PRACTICE CHANGE

Faculty of the School of Education

Susan R. Hughes, Ed. D.

Tracy Stewart, Ph.D.,

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Education

showed academic gains in literacy, regardless of gender or English acquisition. In future

developed during the research.

The Effectiveness of the Literacy Coach as a Practice Change Agent

do, or telling them their instructional practice is incorrect.

is improved, student achievement is improved as well.

of Study (RUOS). Teachers needed professional development and time to collaborate to

progress their way through these sophisticated curricula.

modeling, observing, and conferencing.

attitudes, self-efficacy, and regarding having a coach in their classroom.

Dyer et al., 2013, p.4).

improving teacher efficacy of instructional strategies.

coach can guide teachers through a new literacy program.

Research Questions and Sub-Questions

job-embedded professional development?

attitude towards the workshop model.

informational reading (Calkins, 2015).

informational reading (Calkins, 2015).

Conferring. Conducting a discussion with students in a one-to-one setting where the

for the student.

Concepts of Print. A student’s basic knowledge of how print works, such as

Reading Workshop. Model of teaching where a minilesson lasting about 15 minutes is

with small groups of students or one-on-one.

toward our collaboration.

interactive read alouds, and shared reading and writing.

and coach will debrief on observations.

efficacy, improvement in student achievement, and importance of job-embedded professional

The Impact of Literacy Coaching on Teacher Efficacy

such as enhancing student achievement, classroom management, and explicit instructional

as capable of providing skilled instruction increases teacher’s self-efficacy.

teacher-efficacy. Literacy coaching is the key to teacher skill development (Abernathy-Dyer,

Peer collaboration is not only another aspect of job-embedded professional development,

Carlisle and Berebitsky (2011) examined the effectiveness of professional development in

collaborating with peers to determine learning needs.

The process of building teacher-efficacy needs to be a joint undertaking between the

An understanding of adult learning theory is important to be familiar with for anyone

“Unless learning is transformed through expanded awareness, critical reflection,

access information. Transformational learning, however, seeks changes in the core

practice and instructional planning, teacher efficacy was increased.

instructional practices allowing for an improvement in self-efficacy. Pomerantz and Pierce

(Dixon, 2015; Pomerantz & Pierce, 2013).

As literacy coaches try to foster teacher efficacy, create a professional development

efficacy (Gibson, 2011; Dixon, 2015).

Literacy Coaching on Student Achievement

McDowell et al., 2011; Spelman & Bell, 2011; Dixon, 2015).

observation was backed up by the student’s Developmental Reading Assessment scores.

achievement through the improvement of classroom instruction. This study demonstrated a

improving student outcomes (Bean et al., 2010).

student improvement is no longer an unproven practice.

Importance of job-embedded professional development

coaches encourage teachers to implement instructional practices. He discovered that coaches

provided job-embedded professional development through modeling, conferring, and

competent readers (Pomerantz & Pierce, 2013). Professional development is a fundamental

component of teacher change. Job-embedded professional development in the form of in-class,

reciprocal relationship must be established.

meetings taking place.

job-embedded professional development, a coach is right there to guide teachers in putting