The Clearing House, 83: 133137, 2010

Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0009-8655 print
DOI: 10.1080/00098651003774844

Not Another Trend:

Secondary-Level Literacy Coaching
PATRICIA A. GROSS

Abstract: Literacy coaching on the secondary-level offers new strategies for teachers across academic disciplines. In their own words, teachers describe their experience with working with literacy coaches over a two
year period in a Pennsylvania school district.

Since No Child Left Behind (2001) stressed literacy,

national professional organizations have promoted literacy coaching and developed standards for middle and
high school coaches (International Reading Association
2006) and an online Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse
(2006). Literacy coaching is gaining currency through
state mandates and piloted programs. Literacy coaches
meet with teachers one-on-one to discuss current practices and suggest methods of incorporating literacy into
lessons, emphasizing vocabulary, close reading, expressive writing, and more active student oral participation.
Will literacy coaching prove to be the means of elevating
teaching and learning across content area subjects and
not just another trend?

Keywords: professional development, secondary education, literacy

eachers want to teach. Secondary-level teachers especially want to spark enthusiasm for their content
area. However, external pressures often get in the way.
Current trends in educational theory and practice uctuate with political, social, and economic issues, placing
new demands on teachers. In response, teachers often
feel pushed and pulled in counterproductive directions.
Many ideas ash onto the scene but quickly expire. Over
time, the mere mention of an innovation can cause
teachers to groan, Not another trend!
Literacy coaching is a current trend meant to broaden
instructional repertoires and student engagement. Designed for professional growth through inquiry, collaboration, and experimentation, literacy coaches offer literacy strategies to enliven student interest in all
subjects. In recent years, the concept of literacy has
come to encompass how students comprehend and
convey meaning not only through reading and writing, but also by speaking, listening, viewing, and using
technology. Across academic areas, the processes and
practices of learning through literacy intertwine and expand as digitally-mediated texts transform traditional
approaches and linear thinking. Literacy coaches assist
teachers to take advantage of the multiple modes of
literacy and learning that stimulate student curiosity,
promote inquiry, and generate critical problem-posing.
Students begin to pose problems rather than only solve
problems teachers pose.

Theory and Practice

Many researchers have described literacy coaches
roles and responsibilities (Allen 2006; Boyles 2007;
Dozier 2006; Kise 2006; Moran 2007; Puig and Froelich
2007; Rodgers and Rodgers 2007; Toll 2005), but only
a few have featured middle school (Smith 2007; Smith
2008) and high school (Gross, 2007, 2008). Secondary
schools present unique coaching challenges, because
content-area teachers believe that literacy is the responsibility of English teachers (Lester 2000; OBrien, Stewart, and Moje 1995; Pressley 2004). To breach these
gaps, literacy coaches in secondary schools needed to
consider the teaching and learning cycle by using assessment to guide curricular choices and instruction
in the content area (Buly et al. 2006). Therefore, because literacy coaching counters subject-area thinking, it requires secondary teachers to experiment with
new approaches while still meeting academic discipline
demands.
Issues with literacy coaching that have arisen and
frame this study include teacher efcacy (Bandura 1993;
Bandura 1986; Cantrell and Hughes 2008; Guskey

Patricia A. Gross, EdD, is an associate professor of education at The University

of Scranton, Scranton, PA.
133

134

The Clearing House

2002), local school culture (Gross 2008; Vogt and

Shearer 2007), and the process of coaching (Allen 2006;
Boyles 2007; Moran 2007; Puig and Froelich 2007) as
professional growth (Rodgers and Rodgers 2007; Toll
2008). While these factors indicate the complexity of literacy coaching as an avenue for changing practice, they
also serve as the bases for creating positive changes.
Self-Efcacy and Local School Culture
What triggers a teachers sense of self-efcacy? Teachers are strongly affected by their beliefs about their
potential to impact student learning and those beliefs relate directly to their effort and persistence with
students (Cantrell and Hughes 2008, 100). Accordingly, changes in teaching require a great deal of time
and support because they reect fundamental changes
in belief that are resistant to change (Vogt and Shearer
2007, 40). Teaching experience and student performance bolster such beliefs. Because interdependence exists between teacher efcacy and student achievement
(Guskey 2002), teachers derive satisfaction from student success.
Literacy coaching relies heavily on context. What interest does local school culture express toward professional development generally and new trends specically? How do faculty as a group perceive their ability
to impact student learning? The social persuasion of local school culture rests in a collective sense of efcacy
(Bandura 1993) that exerts strong inuences, especially
in terms of introducing innovations. This reality complicates literacy coaching efforts, because literacy practices are embedded in and dened by particular social
contexts, and shaped by cultural values and local ideologies (Vogt and Shearer 2007, 34). However, across
subjects, critical literacy welcomes multiple perspectives
that counter hegemonic forces and simple solutions to
complex issues. . . acknowledging experiential knowledge of outsiders to cultural, political, and economic
capital (Stevens and Bean 2007, 7). Therefore, literacy coaching has the potential to overcome local and
academic barriers.
The process of literacy coaching as professional development causes yet another reality to surface. Literacy
coaching is a reciprocal learning process that is meant to
foster teacher independence and exible thinking. Successful coaches consider teachers perspectives and the
importance of approximation, factoring in the multiple
levels of teachers growth: self-understanding, beliefs,
values, relationships, and cognition, stressing partnership as the priority (Cambourne 1988; Puig and Froelich
2007; Toll 2008). They understand why teachers make
the instructional choices they do, pose rationales for
other instructional possibilities, and work together toward change (Rodgers and Rodgers 2007, 17). This
necessary collaboration requires mutual trust and equal
voice. The goal of literacy coaching is to increase teacher

83(4) 2010

reection and agency. The question remains: just what

do teachers think? Is literacy coaching causing them to
welcome or reject yet another trend?
The Study
This study examined the rst two years of a program introducing literacy coaching in the secondary
level through content-area teachers perspectives. The
questions that drove this study included: What previous
knowledge did teachers possess about literacy strategies? Why did teachers agree to participate in a nonmandatory initiative? How did literacy coaching impact
instruction?
Setting and Participants
The medium-sized urban school district used in this
study serves a city of approximately 75,000 people that
has a high percentage of residents from lower socioeconomic classes; the population is predominantly white,
with a gradually increasing African American and Hispanic population. This study focused on the larger of
two district high schools (grades 912), with approximately 1,800 students and 145 faculty members. This
district had met minimum state testing adequate yearly
progress (AYP) rates prior to applying for this state grant;
however, district administrators sought to increase student engagement and performance.
The building principal hired ve literacy coaches. Two
young coaches from outside the district were reading
specialists; three coaches from within the district were
veteran math teachers. All ve had a strong interest in
working with adult learners, but none had any experience in this area. They sought new teaching methods
to enhance instruction for others as well as themselves.
The state grant afforded them and participating teachers graduate credits for participating in required, offsite, monthly, full-day literacy strategy classes. On-site,
teachers and coaches planned how to best employ literacy strategies across subject areas. Eight teachers who
joined in the rst year and seven who enrolled in the second year agreed to be interviewed. Eight teachers taught
math, two taught science, one taught social studies, three
taught English, and one taught Spanish. The number of
years of teaching experience ranged from two to thirty
years. Only two third-year teachers had previously undergone teacher preparation courses for using literacy
strategies in their content area.
Methods and Data Analysis
This qualitative, constructivist case study (Charmaz
2006; Creswell 1998; Holstein and Gubrium 2003;
Stake 1995) investigated the perspectives of these fteen teachers. One-on-one interviews applied a semistructured question format to ascertain each teachers
interest and background, philosophies of education, instructional practices, and motivations for joining the

Not Another Trend

initiative. Open-ended questions invited perceptions of

the challenges, progress, and future of applying literacy
strategies.
Recursively, the data analysis of training materials,
building action plans, written records, audio-taped
interviews, and transcripts were reviewed and reread to
determine developmental patterns and major themes.
Categories developed in terms of positive and negative responses about the initiative, expectations, and
strategies. Patterns revealed connections among teacher
efcacy and interest in professional development,
coaching expertise, and instructional gains. Themes
emerged regarding training sessions, experiences with
literacy coaches, and the level of satisfaction with
instructional changes as noted in student performance.
Results
Participating teachers expressed condence in their
capabilities but also demonstrated eagerness to learn
new approaches to teaching. They clearly cared about
their students and sought opportunities to strengthen
the teaching and learning process. They appreciated receiving credits toward state professional development
requirements. Reactions varied regarding the grantrequired, off-site sessions and the in-house coaching
experiences.
Off-site literacy strategy sessions received mixed
reviewssome reported positive outcomes, while others
reported frustrations. Among the positive comments, a
sixteenth-year math teacher appreciated time to talk
with colleagues and even with people from different
districts, but then qualied the actual strategies as not
things that Id ever seen before, but things maybe I had
kind of put on a back shelf [that were] brought. . . to
the forefront. A sixth-year Spanish teacher found a
teacher from a different district who was doing something similar, leading them to swap ideas. A thirdyear math teacher explained, Some of the stuff weve
already talked about in college. . . so what may seem
repetitious to me, for some people is brand new material. He added, Take what you can use. . . you just have
to adapt it. These teachers reported that collaboration
created worthwhile outcomes.
Frustrations derived from the attitudes of presenters,
scarcity of strategies, time-consuming documentation
of activities, and poor timing of assignment due dates.
A fourteenth-year English teacher described presenters
as disorganized[,] repetitive[, and] condescending.
When she did not learn new techniques, and tricks
and methods, she dropped out of this initiative. A math
teacher explained that the timeline for assignments did
not allow sufcient time to experiment with strategies
or reect upon their value. Presenters not only seemed
removed from the trenches of teaching high school,
but they also didnt provide feedback on written work.
Most teachers questioned the value of missing full days

135

of teaching for these classes. Teachers had little incentive to continue when the second year of sessions did
not offer anything new. The perceived decits of these
sessions outweighed the benets for some.
Experiences of working with coaches on-site received
high praise. All teachers credited coaches with recruiting them. Coaches had initiated contact, inquired about
topics to be taught, and then offered resources that
enhanced lessons. Coaches worked incrementally to
gain teacher condence. They purposefully held conversations in teachers lounges about integrating literacy
strategies. Eavesdroppers expressed interest, not in taking the off-site classes, but in working with the coaches,
who gladly obliged. When coaches offered after-school
faculty workshops, they attracted even more teachers.
Coaches demonstrated specic literacy methods and
how they could be incorporated in all academic areas.
Early on, teachers rarely took time to debrief, but gradually, as relationships developed, teachers requested
that coaches observe classes, demonstrate strategies, and
sometimes co-teach a class. In the following, teachers relate the extent to which they invested time and energy
in the program as a result of the inuence of literacy
coaches.
A veteran teacher, who had taught physical education
for twenty-nine years, had taught biology for the past six
years. She met with the literacy coach to discuss handouts and possible activities, developing strategies, totally different than what [she] had done in the past She
explained, Particularly in biology, where my experience was lecture, take notes, lecture, take notes. I always
thought, when I started teaching this, I cant teach like
that because thats not how I wanted to learn. Coaches
explained how to develop more cooperative learning activities that encouraged students to discuss topics with
one another. Over time, literacy coaching invigorated
her to run back and forth to talk about using literacy
with her science colleagues, encouraging them to join
the program.
One third-year math teacher described the coach as
amazing. . . always helpful, always leaving stuff in [the]
mailbox, tips for [the] classroom. . . available all the
time. He continued, Two teachers in the room is always better than one. . . another set of eyes, its another
mind working, its another person being able to help
students. He welcomed the literacy coach to come to
his classes whenever she wants. Similarly, a ninth-year
math teacher detailed working with a coach to handle
problems with factoring: We would sit down and brainstorm where we saw trouble areas and where we could
kind of cut things off before they got worse. . . trying to
gure out what method would probably be the best [and
would] cut down a lot of guess and check work. These
teachers appreciated the support and approach that the
coach provided on a regular basis by describing specic
literacy strategies for specic classes and students.

136

The Clearing House

A twenty-ve-year special education teacher who had

begun teaching English three years prior didnt jump
right on [the literacy coaching], because [she] didnt
know how much work was going to be involved.
She noted, Its been a wonderful experience. . . having someone to meet with about the ideas. She had
been worried that it was going to be totally separate
from what she was already doing, but was pleasantly
surprised in that Im still teaching my curriculum, Im
still using my materials, but. . . from a different angle.
As a result, she introduced more resources and genres
of literature to her classes. Using more primary sources
to teach literature led to consulting with the history
teachers to create interdisciplinary lessons. Coaches had
encouraged her to connect her course with other subjects to facilitate student learning.
The only negative comments about working with the
coaches revealed more about secondary school culture
than about the coaches or the teachers. Time was an
issue. Teaching schedules, pressures to prepare students
for mandatory state examinations, and the demands of
teaching ve classes a day left teachers with few available time slots to collaborate with coaches or each other.
Administrative decisions created another issue; coaches
were assigned to specic classes with high numbers of
special education students, and then assigned to administer and grade test programs, which cut into their availability in the second year. The difculty of nding mutual time discouraged some teachers and disappointed
others.
Satisfaction with instructional changes received high
ratings. Teachers found that working with coaches to
incorporate literacy strategies into their classrooms created a more dynamic, student-centered environment
for learning. Switching from deductive to inductive approaches enabled students to be more critical and creative thinkers. One English teacher noticed a lot more
sharing of ideas. . . [students] making the meaning. . ..
Its nice to see that process emerge. . . they like the collaboration. She added, I nd its wonderful and the
kids are so open to it, and I feel that theyre getting
so much more out of it as opposed to me just lecturing. She reected on these changes in her approach as
more letting go of having to be the one in charge. . .
[being] much more open to group work, much more
open to them talking. The change in classroom climate as a result of literacy coaching freed her and her
students.
The teacher of Spanish was trying to approach things
from a different angle. . . its more open and [students] can do what interests them. She began to offer more cultural arts options, nding that this broader
approach caused transformations in students who ordinarily would not do anything; instead, they were actually doing research because they care about it. She
drew from English language learners in her classes to

83(4) 2010

make connections between English and Spanish. These

changes suggested by coaches invited all students to use
language more authentically.
Coaching enabled a third-year general science and
biology teacher to adapt and vary literacy strategies
at different points in a lesson. She involved students
more, rst by introducing white boards to capture student responses and later using pair-share activities, increasing both her own and her students creativity.
She collaborated with an English teacher to encourage students to write comic strips based on new scientic material and to design skits to illustrate key course
concepts.
Discussion
Literacy coaching was not an easy sell. Beliefs and
motivation were grounded in a local school culture that
lacked a tradition of collaboration. The initiative came
from the administration, not from the bottom up, and
the faculty lacked a clear explanation of the goals and
logistics from the start. Traditional teachers who may
have beneted the most did not enroll in the program,
although participating teachers added to their teaching
repertoire and professional growth. Required off-site,
full-day sessions proved mostly ineffective, while daily
access to coaches on-site proved fruitful. The exible
and engaging approaches taken by the coaches spurred
slow, incremental progress as teachers encountered new
methods for incorporating literacy into instruction.
Literacy coaching requires openness to change, willingness to be reective and collaborative, and time
for transformation (Clandinin et al. 1993; CochranSmith and Lytle 1993; Drago-Severson 2004). Secondary teachers expressed difculties with the logistics
of nding time and energy to participate in training,
develop new lessons, and meet with coaches. They described the coaches as supportive, resourceful, and helpful, but had mixed feelings about leaving their classes
to attend full-day trainings. Initially, they hesitated to
co-teach with coaches, be observed, or debrief the effectiveness of literacy strategies. In time, they enjoyed the
new-found opportunities to collaborate with coaches
and colleagues, and identied specic, positive changes
in student reactions to and interactions with the inclusion of literacy strategies in their content area. Overall,
the success of literacy coaching relied heavily on the
expertise of coaches to intervene differently with each
teacher, as well as teacher willingness to effect change.
The teachers who participated in the program sought
new ideas. Their enthusiasm, as well as the supportive and exible approaches of the coaches, brought
others into the conversation, even if they did not
formally join the initiative. Although this study reects the experiences of a small number of teachers in
one school building, the perceptions they shared are

Not Another Trend

informative. Willingness to experiment can effect powerful transformations in classrooms and, thus, in students lives. Having literacy coaches available in the
building on a daily basis over a two-year period allowed
teachers to gradually grasp and employ new approaches
to teaching. They saw how literacy strategies inspired
students to think more critically and creatively about
every subject, becoming more active investigators of
knowledge.
Further research is needed to ascertain the importance
of continuous administrative support, the development
of literacy coaching in different local school cultures,
and the ability to measure the difference that literacy
strategies make in instruction and student performance. Time must be given to planning, enacting, and
evaluating changes of this magnitude. Strong leaders,
able coaches, and receptive teachers could institute
literacy coaching, rather than allowing it to become
merely another trend.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. 2006. Becoming a literacy leader: Supporting learning and change.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
. 1993. Perceived self-efcacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28:11748.
Boyles, N. N. 2007. Hands-on literacy coaching: Helping coaches integrate
literacy content with the how-to of coaching. Gainesville, FL: Mauphin
House.
Buly, M. R., T. Coskie, L. Robinson, and K. Egawa. 2006. Literacy
coaching: Coming out of the corner. Voices from the Middle 13 (4):
2428.
Cambourne, B. 1988. The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Auckland, New Zealand: Ashton
Scholastic.
Cantrell, S. C., and H. K. Hughes. 2008. Teacher efcacy and content
literacy implementation: An exploration of the effects of extended
professional development with coaching. Journal of Literacy Research
40:95127.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide
through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Clandinin, D. J., A. Davies, P. Hogan, and B. Kennard. 1993. Learning
to teach, teaching to learn. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1993. Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among ve traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

137

Dozier, C. 2006. Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Drago-Severson, E. 2004. Helping teachers learn: Principal leadership for
adult growth and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gross, P. A. 2007. The Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative:
An instrumental case study of the rst two years in one district. Paper
presented at National Reading Conference. Austin, TX, November
2007.
Gross, P. A. 2008. How do literacy coaches engage secondary-level
contant area teachers? Paper presented at National Reading Conference. Orlando, FL, December, 2008.
Guskey, T. R. 2002. Professional development and teacher change.
Teachers and Teaching 8:38191.
Holstein, J. A., and J. F. Gubrium, eds. 2003. Inside interviewing: New
lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
International Reading Association. 2006. Standards for literacy coaches.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kise, J. A. G. 2006. Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lester, J. H. 2000. Secondary education: Does literacy t in? High
School Journal 83:1016.
Literary Coaching Clearinghouse. 2006. http://www.literacycoaching
online.org (accessed April 15, 2010).
Moran, C. M. 2007. Differentiated literacy coaching: Scaffolding for student
and teacher success. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
OBrien, D. G., R. A. Stewart, and E. B. Moje. 1995. Why content
literacy is difcult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research
Quarterly 30 (3): 44263.
Pressley, M. 2004. The need for research on secondary literacy education. In Adolescent literacy research and practice, ed. T. L. Jetton and J.
A. Dole, 41532. New York: Guilford.
Puig, E. A., and K. S. Froelich. 2007. The literacy coach: Guiding in the
right direction. Boston: Pearson.
Rodgers, A., and E. M. Rodgers. 2007. The effective literacy coach: Using
inquiry to support teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Smith, A. T. 2007. The middle school literacy coach: Considering roles
in context. 56th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 5367.
Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
. 2008. Exploring coach perspectives on teacher change and the literacy
coaching process. Paper presented at National Reading Conference.
Orlando, FL, December 36, 2008
Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Stevens, L. P. and T. W. Bean. 2007. Critical literacy: Context, research,
and practice in the K12 classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toll, C. 2005. The literacy coachs survival guide: The literacy coachs
survival guide:. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
. 2008. Surviving but not yet thriving: Essential questions and practical
answers for experienced literacy coaches. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Vogt, M. E., and B. A. Shearer. 2007. Reading specialists and literacy
coaches in the real world. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson.

Copyright of Clearing House is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.