This study examined the implementation and impact of literacy coaching under Michigan's Read by Grade Three law. Drawing on 1,330 coaching logs, 318 hours of classroom video, and 900 minutes of interviews, we investigated (a) whether coaching improved K–3 teachers’ use of research-aligned literacy practices relative to a waitlist control group; (b) how coaches described the processes, content, and structure of their work; and (c) the opportunities and constraints they faced while implementing coaching within a statewide policy. Findings indicate that coaching supported teachers’ instructional improvement and that high fidelity to research-aligned practices was achievable at scale, although shaped by local conditions—highlighting the need for policies that attend to context to maximize the impact of large-scale coaching initiatives.
AtteberryA.BrykA. S. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in literacy coaching activities. Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 356–382. https://doi.org/10.1086/661994
2.
BeanR. M.DraperJ. A.HallV.VandermolenJ.ZigmondN. (2010). Coaches and coaching in reading first: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1086/653471
3.
BlazarD.KraftM. A. (2019). Balancing rigor, replication, and relevance: A case for multiple-cohort, longitudinal experiments. AERA Open, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419876252
4.
BlazarD.KraftM. A. (2015). Exploring mechanisms of effective teacher coaching: A tale of two cohorts from a randomized experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 542–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715579487
5.
BlazarD.McNamaraD.BlueG. (2024). Instructional coaching personnel and program scalability. Education Finance and Policy, 19(3), 492–523. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00407
6.
BrunsekA.PerlmanM.McMullenE.FalenchukO.FletcherB.NocitaG.KamkarN.ShahP. S. (2020). A meta-analysis and systematic review of the associations between professional development and children's outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 53(4), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.03.003
7.
CarlisleJ. F.BerebitskyD. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional development. Reading and Writing, 24(7), 773–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9224-4
8.
CarlisleJ. F.KelceyB.BerebitskyD. (2013). Teachers’ support of students’ vocabulary learning during literacy instruction in high poverty elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1360–1391. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213492844
9.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302
10.
CoburnC. E.WoulfinS. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.008
11.
CohenJ. (1988). The effect size: Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (pp. 77–83). Routledge.
12.
CokerD. L.JenningsA. S.Farley-RippleE.MacArthurC. A. (2018). The type of writing instruction and practice matters: The direct and indirect effects of writing instruction and student practice on reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 502. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000232
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
15.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140
16.
DeussenT.CoskieT.RobinsonL.AutioE. (2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
17.
Elish-PiperL.L’AllierS. K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading achievement in grades K–1. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070902913289
18.
Elish-PiperL.L’AllierS. K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades K–3. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1086/660685
GaretM. S.CronenS.EatonM.KurkiA.LudwigM.JonesW.UekawaK.FalkA.BloomH.DoolittleF.ZhuP.SztejnbergL. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
21.
GomezR. E.KaganS. L.FoxE. A. (2015). Professional development of the early childhood education teaching workforce in the United States: An overview. Professional Development in Education, 41(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.986820
22.
HattieJ. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
23.
HindmanA. H.WasikB. A. (2012). Unpacking an effective language and literacy coaching intervention in head start: Following teachers’ learning over two years of training. Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/666389
24.
HillH. C.EricksonA. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x19891436
IppolitoJ. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/653474
27.
IppolitoJ.BeanR. M.SachaK. (2023). Innovations in elementary literacy coaching: Sustaining coaching practices in virtual spaces. In D. A. Robertson, L. A. Hall, & C. H. Brock (Eds.), Innovations in literacy professional learning (pp. 213–239). Guilford Press.
JoyceB. R.ShowersB. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
31.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
32.
LandryS. H.SwankP. R.AnthonyJ. L.AsselM. A. (2011). An experimental study evaluating professional development activities within a state funded pre-kindergarten program. Reading and Writing, 24, 971–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9243-1
33.
LesleyM.BeachW.SmitJ. (2020). “You can't put everything I've been through into professional development”: Transformative literacy coaching in an “underperforming” high school. Literacy Research and Instruction, 60(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2020.1777231
34.
ManginM. M.DunsmoreK. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x14522814
35.
MatsumuraL. C.SartorisM.BickelD. D.GarnierH. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal's role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x09347341
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
41.
MorseJ. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Sage.
42.
NeumanS. B.CunninghamL. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208328088
43.
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. https://doi.org/10.1086/653470
44.
NeumanS. B.QuinteroE.ReistK. (2023). Reading reform across America: A survey of state legislation. Albert Shanker Institute.
45.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.8.4.434
46.
OttleyJ. R.PiastaS. B.CoogleC. G.SpearC. F.RahnN. L. (2019). Implementation of bug-in-ear coaching by community-based professional development providers. Early Education and Development, 30(3), 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1545500
PiantaR. C.LipscombD.RuzekE. (2022). Indirect effects of coaching on pre-K students’ engagement and literacy skill as a function of improved teacher–student interaction. Journal of School Psychology, 91, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.12.003
49.
PiastaS. B.JusticeL. M.O’ConnellA. A.MauckS. A.Weber-MayrerM.SchachterR. E.FarleyK. S.SpearC. F. (2017). Effectiveness of large-scale, state-sponsored language and literacy professional development on early childhood educator outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(2), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1270378
50.
PowellD. R.DiamondK. E. (2013). Implementation fidelity of a coaching-based professional development program for improving Head Start teachers’ literacy and language instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113516678
51.
SailorsM.PriceL. (2015). Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): A model of coaching for improving reading instruction and reading achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.008
52.
SailorsM.PriceL. R. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1086/648980
53.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage
54.
SchachterR. E.Hatton-BowersH.JacksonH.KnocheL. L. (2022) An exploratory study of early childhood coaches’ practices and professional needs. Early Years, 44(1), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2022.2108378
55.
SchachterR. E.KnocheL. L.GoldbergM. J.LuJ. (2023). What is the empirical research base of early childhood coaching? A mapping review. Review of Educational Research, 94(5), 627–659. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231195836
56.
SchachterR. E.Weber-MayrerM. M.PiastaS. B.O’ConnellA. (2018). What happens during language and literacy coaching? Coaches’ reports of their interactions with educators. Early Education and Development, 29(6), 852–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1487222
57.
SmithM.BradyJ.Clark-ChiarelliN. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation tool, K–3 (ELLCO K–3) (Research ed.). Brooks Publishing.
58.
StrunkK. O.WrightT. S.KilbrideT.ZhuQ.CummingsA.WestJ.TurnerM.De VotoC. (2021). Michigan’s read by grade three law: Year one report. Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. https://epicedpolicy.org/rbg3-year-one-report/
59.
StrunkK. O.WrightT. S.WestallJ.ZhuQ.KilbrideT.CummingsA.UtterA.MavrogodatoM. (2022). Michigan’s read by grade three law: Year two report. Education Policy Innovation Collaborative. https://epicedpolicy.org/rbg3-year-two-report/
60.
SykesG. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappa, 77(7), 465–489.
61.
WalpoleS.BlameyK. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.62.3.4
62.
WalpoleS.McKennaM. C.Uribe-ZarainX.LamitinaD. (2010). The relationship between coaching and instruction in the primary grades: Evidence from high-poverty schools. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/653472
63.
WasikB. A.HindmanA. H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and literacy of at-risk preschoolers through professional development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023067
64.
WayneA. J.CoggshallJ. G. (2022). How to ensure high-quality instructional coaching at scale. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(5), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221079978
65.
Weber-MayrerM. M.PiastaS. B.OttleyJ. R.JusticeL. M.O’ConnellA. A. (2018). Early childhood literacy coaching: An examination of coaching intensity and changes in educators’ literacy knowledge and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.013
66.
WoulfinS. L. (2015). Catalysts of change: An examination of coaches’ leadership practices in framing a reading reform. Journal of School Leadership, 25(3), 526–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461502500309
67.
WoulfinS.GabrielR. E. (2020). Interconnected infrastructure for improving reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.339
68.
WrightT. S.BrunerL.CummingsA.StrunkK. O. (2024). Understanding K–3 teachers‘ literacy instructional practices during the pandemic-impacted 2020–2021 school year. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(1), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.523
69.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W. Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement: Issues and answers (REL 2007-No. 033). Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498548.pdf
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
