This study examines the effect of a comprehensive literacy-coaching program focused on enacting a discussion-based approach to reading comprehension instruction (content-focused coaching [CFC]) on the quality of classroom text discussions over 2 years. The study used a cluster-randomized trial in which schools were assigned to either CFC or standard practice in the district for literacy coaching. Observers rated classroom text discussions significantly higher in CFC schools. Teachers in the CFC schools participated more frequently in coaching activities that emphasized planning and reflecting on instruction, enacting lessons in their classrooms, building knowledge of the theory underlying effective pedagogy, and differentiating instruction than did the teachers in the comparison condition. Qualitative analyses of coach interviews identified substantive differences in the professional development support available to coaches, scope of coaches’ job responsibilities, and focus of coaching resources in the CFC schools and comparison schools.
AllensworthE.PonisciakS.MazzeoM. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (2006). President’s message: Reading specialists, reading teachers, reading coaches: A question of credentials. Reading Today, 23(4), 16-17.
3.
ApplebeeA.LangerJ.NystrandM.GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Education Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In SykesG.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
BeanR. M.DraperJ. A.HallV.VandermolenJ.ZigmondN. (2010). Coaches and coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114.
7.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. B. (2006). Improving comprehension with Questioning the Author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York, NY: Scholastic.
8.
BlarneyK. L.MeyerC. K.WalpoleS. (2009). Middle and high school literacy coaches: A national survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 310-323.
9.
BloomH. S. (Ed.). (2005). Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
10.
BoruchR. F.FoleyE. (2000). The honestly experimental society. In BickmanL. (Ed.), Validity and social experiments: Donald Campbell’s legacy (pp. 193-239). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
CazdenC. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.HolumA. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38-46.
14.
CostaA. L.GarmstonR. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance Schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Cordon.
15.
DuessenT.CoskieT.RobinsonL.AutioE. (2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First (REL Northwest [REL 2007-No. 005]). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
ElmoreR. (2003). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
FeingoldA. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 43-53.
18.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaséK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI #231).
19.
GaretM. S.CronenS.EatonM.KurkiA.LudwigM.JonesW.. . . SztejnbergL. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE Report No. 2008-4031). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
20.
GoldenbergC. (2010). Reading instruction for English language learners. In KamilM.PearsonP. D.MojeE.AfflerbachP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 684-710). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
GuskeyT. R.YoonK. S. (2009, March). What works in professional development?Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
22.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.
23.
JoyceB.ShowersB. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). London, England: Longman.
24.
LipseyM.WilsonD. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
25.
MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.LockwoodJ. R.MartorellF.GershwinD.NaftelS.. . . CregoA. (2008). Supporting literacy across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
MatsumuraL. C.SartorisM.BickelD.GarnierH. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655-93.
28.
MatsumuraL. C.SlaterS. C.JunkerB.PetersonM.BostonM.SteeleM.ResnickL. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the Instructional Quality Assessment. (CSE Technical Report #681). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
29.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for understanding text. Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-408.
30.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of approaches for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
31.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
McMillanJames H. (2007). Randomized field trials and internal validity: Not so fast my friend. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(15). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=15
33.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
34.
MurphyP. K.WilkensonI. A. G.SoterA. O.HennesseyM. N.AlexanderJ. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764.
35.
NeufeldB.RoperD. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity—Promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
36.
NeumanS. B.WrightT. S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early childhood educators: A mixed-methods study of coursework and coaching. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 63-86.
37.
NystrandM. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392-412.
38.
PoglincoS.BachA.HovdeK.RosenblumS.SaundersM.SupovitzJ. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
39.
PowellD. R.DiamondK. E.BurchinalM. R.KoehlerM. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299-312.
40.
QuintJ. C.AkeyT. M.RappaportS.WillnerC. J. (2007). Instructional leadership, teaching quality, and student achievement: Suggestive evidence from three urban school districts. New York, NY: Montreal Diabetes Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/470/overview.html
41.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 173-185.
42.
RaudenbushS. W. (2005). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34, 25-32.
43.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
RaudenbushS. W.LiuX. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387-401.
45.
ResnickL. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2006). From individual learning to organizational designs for learning. In VerschaffelL.DochyF.BoekaertsM.VosniadouS. (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends: Sixteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (Advances in Learning and Instruction series), Oxford: Pergamon.
46.
RiveraN.BurleyK.SassJ. (2004, February). Evaluation of school-based professional development (2002-03, Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 187.). Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, CA.
47.
RowanB.CamburnE.CorrentiR. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum in large-scale surveys: Insights from the study of instructional improvement. Elementary School Journal, 105, 75-102.
48.
RyanP. M. (2000). Esperanaza Rising. New York, NY: Scholastic.
49.
SailorsM.PriceL. (2010). Professional development for cognitive reading strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 110, 301-323.
50.
SaundersW. M.GoldenbergC. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluent-English proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99, 277-301.
51.
SoterA. O.WilkinsonI. A.MurphyP. K.RudgeL.ReningerK.EdwardsM. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 372-391.
52.
StaubF. C.WestL.BickelD. D. (2003). What is content-focused coaching? In WestL.StaubF. C. (Eds.), Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons (pp. 1-17). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
53.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
54.
SudmanS.BradburnN.SchwarzsN. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
TharpR. G.GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
