Literature Review

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 5^th – 9^th 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.