This post is the literature review I conducted for the effects of literacy coaching on student achievement.
Introduction
A question has arisen recently on the effectiveness of
literacy coaches in schools on student achievement. The
purpose of this review is to evaluate current research on literacy coaching
trends in K-12 public education. The
history of literacy coaching can be traced back to the 1920s in the United
States. Hall refers to a 1981 report
written by Rita Bean and Robert Wilson indicating their research can trace
literacy coaching to the 1930s, and according to their research, the role of a
literacy coach has evolved over the past eight decades. The role was originally a supervisory role in
the 1930s and transitioned to a role of support for teachers in the 1960s
(Hall). Although this role has been a
part of the American educational system for over eighty years and has changed
in definition over time, little viable research has been conducted to prove the
effectiveness of literacy coaching on student achievement.
Until recently,
there have been few studies on the overall effectiveness of coaching to support
academic success for students. The
earliest study found was conducted in 1983 by the American Educational Research
Association. Then, all literature found,
with the exception of one study conducted in 1998, dates from 2004 to the
present year. A push from policy and law
makers encourages the incorporation of literacy coaches into school districts
with some positions federally funded through programs such as Title 1. Most literature, although scarce, points to
the overall effects of literacy coaching on student achievement as providing
positive outcomes. In contrast both
Marsh (et al., 2008) and Garet (et al., 2008) found that literacy coaching had
little to no effect on student learning (as cited in Biancarosa, Bryk, &
Dexter, 2010). However, due to the lack
of current research on the topic, it is evident that the effects of coaching on
student achievement must continue to be studied.
Personal interest
in the correlation between effective literacy coaching and student achievement
stems from a new employment opportunity.
Moving into a literacy coach position from a writing teacher prompted a
thirst for knowledge on the subject. It
is an individual drive to see effectiveness of job performance. The literature analyzed for this review will
be addressed in four categories: Methodology of Review, Overview of Research,
Findings and Discussion, and Implications and Future Research.
Methodology
of Review
The research
examined in this literature review is both quantitative and qualitative in
nature. There is a combination of
research studies, historical information, and descriptive articles. The research studies focus on the
effectiveness of literacy coaching on student achievement on multiple
standardized assessments as well as one that focused on the efficacy of teacher
knowledge and implementation of literacy strategies. The historical information obtained discusses
the chronology of literacy coaches and how the role has evolved since its
inception. Descriptive articles were
also examined most of which focused upon how to create an effective literacy
coach and the successes from coaching programs.
Two venues of
research engines and literary databases were explored upon initial research. Google Scholar and JSTOR provided primary
results. Literature chosen ranged from
studies conducted as early as 1983 to more current studies listed as recently
as this year. Older studies were evaluated
to see if trends emerged and correlated with more recent data. The importance of viewing research
longitudinally permits stronger implications for the positive effects of
literacy coaching on student achievement.
A combination of
keywords was used to retrieve resources from search engines and databases. Those included were effects, coaching,
academic, and achievement. The initial
search provided thousands of articles from scholarly journals; however, it was
difficult to peruse through the amount of literature produced. There were numerous articles provided that
did not reflect the purpose of the research desired. Articles discussed other venues of coaching
such as peer coaching (teacher to teacher as well as student to student) and
athletic coaching. Although these
articles would provide interesting reading, they missed the mark of the
researcher’s intended pursuit. A
restructuring of the keywords used for research with simple additions yielded
the best results. The most effective
word combination used was effects of
literacy coaches on academic achievement.
This amalgamation of words yielded the best results but still did not
filter as well as anticipated. Case
studies, historical accounts, and descriptive articles were the three types of
sources located.
Overview
of Research
Research
Studies
Five research
studies were found relating to the effects of literacy coaching on student
achievement. The overall purpose of
the research studies was to identify if there were positive effects from
literacy coaching on how students achieve on standardized testing. However, each study individualized the
specific purpose and ranged from implementation of one year coaching
professional development for teachers (Chambers-Cantrell & Hughes, 2008) to
a four year longitudinal study on the effects of a specific literacy coaching
program called Literacy Collaborative (Biancarosa, Sryk, & Dexter, 2010).
Participants in the studies also
varied slightly but mainly focused on 5th – 9th grade
students. One of the
four studies examined grades K-2. All of
the studies conducted bore similar findings—there are positive effects of
literacy coaching on student achievement.
Some studies only showed minimal increase in student achievement while
others exhibited significant gains. All
studies took place in public K-12 educational settings. No private institutions were among the
studies conducted.
Historical
Information and Descriptive Reviews
Four other sources
provide historical and descriptive overviews of the effects of literacy
coaching on student achievement. One
was a historical piece which investigated the evolving role of the literacy
coach. It used a personal story of one
teacher and coach and how their relationship of trust increased student
achievement. It also presented ideas on
how the role of the literacy coach has changed and how different vocabulary to
describe coaches is used in different areas of the country.
There were three
descriptive articles examined. The
first discussed several large urban areas that have had success with the
implementation of literacy coaches but also offers a few caveats when
considering hiring a literacy coach. The
final two articles focused on what the role of an effective literacy coach looks
like on a day-to-day basis and how a coach should spend time. Effective
coaches focus time and attention on students and teachers, are in the
classrooms often, and offer teachers support (Dole & Donaldson, 2006).
Findings
and Discussion
Research
Studies
All five studies
reviewed agreed that the implementation of a literacy coach has positive
effects on student achievement. The
increase in achievement differed in the areas of student grade level and
implementation length of a coaching program.
The studies ranged from one year coaching/professional development
programs to a four year longitudinal study. Three of the five studies showed increase in
student achievement and were only implemented for one year when the study was
conducted. The first of the other two
showed statistically significant higher scores with a two year study, and the
second, a four year longitudinal study, showed the most significant gains. Studies also showed that teacher efficacy of
their practice also affected student achievement.
In one study conducted
by Abbott et al., fifth and sixth grade teachers received intervention and
coaching to modify teaching practices.
There were control classrooms where no professional development and
coaching were provided and intervention classrooms assigned where teachers
received instruction and coaching on literacy strategies. At the end of the study it was found that
students in the intervention classrooms had significantly higher achievement on
the CAT. It also reflects teacher
attitude and efficacy. Abbott et al.
stated, “Findings from the present study…suggest that it is possible to improve
academic achievement…by changing teaching practices in mainstream classrooms.”
(Abbott et al., 1998). Chambers-Cantrell
& Hughes argue that “…researchers found that teachers who believed they
could positively impact student achievement…were more effective in implementing
change.” (Chambers-Cantrell & Hughes, 2008).
Another year-long study that conducted
professional development for teachers of grades six and nine was examined. A survey was given to teachers prior to any
professional development to assess how they viewed their own efficacy in
literacy strategies and again after a year of professional development with
coaching. Classroom observations were
also conducted (Chambers-Cantrell & Hughes, 2008). A study conducted by Gibson and Dembo in 1984
concluded that “Observational data have suggested that teacher efficacy is
related to teacher factors associated with higher student learning such as
effective classroom organization and persistence with struggling.” (as cited in
Chambers-Cantrell and Hughes, 2008). Professional
development though coaching assists in teacher efficacy, and in turn, higher
student achievement is accomplished.
Positive effects from literacy
coaching on student achievement were determined in the first three, year-long
studies. In
comparison two longer studies, one examining two separate school years
(1997-1998 and 2005-2006) and one a four year longitudinal study, discovered
similar results but on a larger scale. The
longer coaching programs were implemented, the higher percentage of student
achievement appeared on tests. Lockwood,
Sloan-McCombs and Marsh found that the first cohort to receive interventions
ended with positive results. “The grade
8 results are positive and significant for three of the four cohorts and are
arguably the most credible because the data series dating back to 1998 provides
more pre-treatment data points with which to establish trends.” (Lockwood,
Sloan-McComb & Marsh, 2010). Similarly, Biancarosa, Byrk and Dexter
determined that using the Literacy Collaborative, a specific coaching approach,
led to significant gains in student achievement (Biancarosa, Bryk, &
Dexter, 2010).
Historical
and Descriptive Reviews
Two of the
historical and descriptive articles reviewed support that the implementation of
a literacy coach has positive effects on student achievement. Russo describes large urban districts such as
New York City, Philadelphia, and Dallas as gaining huge success in student
achievement after hiring literacy coaches and states the following about the
Dallas schools:
In Dallas, former associate
superintendent and “reading czar” Robert B. Cooter, Jr., now a professor of
reading and urban literacy education at the University of Memphis, emphasized
the need for literacy coaches as part of his districtwide Dallas Reading Plan
to improve student performance…By 2001, five years after the program began, all
of the schools involved had been removed from the state’s low-performing list
and student reading performance had improved dramatically (Russo, 2004).
Hall’s research echoes
that of Russo. Andres Henriquez, a
Carnegie Corporation program officer in the Education Division, stated,
“Coaches are an answer to a district’s need to provide ongoing professional
development…Literacy coaching can help teachers make the content of their
subject more comprehensible to students, so they can truly understand the
complex information in their textbooks” (Hall, 2004). The other two articles examined how to have
successful coaches and what their role should look like within the schools.
Implications
and Future Research
The five research
studies examined for this literature review consisted of mostly quantitative
data from student achievement testing; however, the surveys given to teachers
in the Chambers-Cantrell and Hughes study exhibited open-ended questions
allowing for a more qualitative impression. In addition, the
Chambers-Cantrell and Hughes study held teacher/classroom observations and
interviews. Although all studies
reviewed found that there are positive effects on student achievement when a
quality literacy coach is in the school, more research must be done to prove
this sufficiently.
A suggestion for
future research would be for studies to be conducted beginning at the
individual district level. This
research could then be compiled to compare to others in the school’s
county. This research could then lead to
comparisons of districts on a state-wide level.
It must begin at the local level and build progressively.
Conclusion
As this author embarks on a new journey from the role of
a teacher to the role of a literacy coach, all of the literature reviewed has
been beneficial. Each of the studies remarked that there is scarce information available
on the effects of literacy coaching on student achievement. This is particularly important because
teachers and coaches alike want to know they have been successful in the
classroom; they want to create the next generation of great thinkers.
The historical and
descriptive articles examined also led to benefits to continue pursuing this
work. The articles were clear in how
to become a good coach and what it takes for coaching success. The historical article reviewed also gave the
author hope to believe that if large, urban districts like New York City,
Philadelphia, and Dallas can do it, so can the coaches, teachers, and students
of Flint.
References
Abbott, R.D.,
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, D., Hill, K.G., Kosterman, R., & Catalano,
R.F. (1998). Changing teacher practices
to promote achievement and bonding to school.
American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 542-552.
Bangert-Drowns,
R.L., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C.
(1983). Effects of coaching
programs on achievement test performance.
Review of Educational Research,
53(4), 571-585.
Biancarosa, G.,
Bryk, A.S., & Dexter, E.R.
(2010). Assessing the value-added
effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student
learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 8-34.
Buly, M.R.,
Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Egawa, K.
(2006). Literacy coaching: Coming
out of the corner. Voices from the Middle, 24(13), 24-28.
Chambers-Cantrell,
S., & Hughes, H.K. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy
implementation: An exploration of the effects of extended professional
development with coaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 40,
95-127.
Dole, J.A.,
& Donaldson, R. (2006). “What am I supposed to do all day?”: Three
big ideas for the reading coach. International Reading Association,
486-488.
Hall, B.
(2004). Literacy coaches. An
evolving role. Carnegie Reporter, 3(1).
Lockwood, J.R.,
Slaon-McCombs, J. & Marsh, J.
(2010). Linking reading coaches
and student achievement: Evidence from Florida middle schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 372-388.
Russo, A. 2004.
School based coaching: A revolution in professional development-or just
the latest fad? Harvard Education Letter Research Online, 20(4). Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/hel/article/269.
