Content uploaded by Vicki Collet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vicki Collet on Mar 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
1
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model: Coaching for Teacher Change
Vicki S. Collet
University at Buffalo
This study examines the gradual increase of responsibility (GIR) model for teacher
coaching (Collet, 2008), an adaptation of Pearson & Gallagher’s (1983) Gradual
Release of Responsibility model. In GIR, instructional coaches model, make
recommendations, ask probing questions, affirm teachers’ appropriate decisions, and
praise in order to provide decreasing scaffolding which moves teachers toward
interdependence and collaboration.
Introduction
Teacher educators seek to create environments that will foster change. From a sociocultural
prospective, instructional change requires not only awareness of content and practices, but more
importantly, an understanding of the contexts involved in the construction and appropriation of
knowledge. For teachers, as for their students, scaffolding in the context of use is necessary for
effective learning to take place. Teachers benefit when they are supported in the process of
changing their practices. Unfortunately, most professional development activities are separated
from the classroom, and thus from the opportunity for teachers to put what they are learning into
immediate use. The lack of such an activity setting is a problem that Tharp and Gallimore called
“the choke-point of change” (1988, p. 190).
In an effort to address this issue, many universities in the United States provide a clinical
experience as part of graduate literacy programs offered to both pre-service and inservice
teachers. Clinics serve as a vehicle for developing teachers’ dispositions towards instruction by
offering targeted guidance and encouraging nuanced instructional judgments (Dunston, 2007;
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
2
Kibby & Barr, 1999; Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). This activity setting can facilitate
teacher change, focusing on interactions rather than isolated understandings, providing
contextualized opportunities for professional practice. Supervisors or coaches in such settings
provide feedback as teachers appropriate a repertoire of strategies and deepen their
understanding of literacy acquisition. In designing this study I hypothesized that clinical
experiences, where scaffolding is provided by a more-experienced other, have the potential for
producing lasting change.
The purpose of this mixed-method study is to better understand the coaching process,
illuminating the role that instructional support and feedback play in teachers’ decision-making.
Anders et al. (2009), following their review of research of the teaching of reading teachers,
recommended that the process of learning and doing be unpacked, and that the use of supervisor
feedback be considered in terms of what types of feedback are best at what times in the teacher
education process. My research addresses these recommendations by illuminating the role that
instructional support and feedback play in teachers’ decision-making. The study describes how
the coaching process used with the teachers in this study relates to the process and outcomes of
teacher change and how coaching practices are modified as teachers’ competence increases.
This mixed-methods study will inform the growing body of research on literacy coaching by
interfacing a gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model on coaching practice. GRR grew
from a cognitive perspective and was proposed as a model for comprehension strategy
instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), but it has since been applied to a variety of situations,
including professional development for teachers (Sweeney, 2005). Its use specifically as a
model for coaching, however, has not been explored. Therefore, this study aims to find: How
do coaching interactions change over the course of a clinical teacher-education experience?
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
3
Review of Related Literature and Theoretical Foundations
Exploring Teacher Change
In schools of the early 21
st
century, an atmosphere of accountability and continuous
improvement prevails. For teachers, change is a constant (Guskey, 2004; Ross, 1994; Stein &
Wang, 1988; Toll, 2005). Because contexts for teaching are constantly changing, outcomes can
be abstract. Preparation for teaching in such contexts requires professional development that is
discursive as well as dialogic and reflective (Moore, 2004; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; Perkins,
1998; Yust, 1997; Poole & Okeafor, 1989). Teacher education should not only present a full
repertoire of instructional strategies, it must support teachers’ epistemological understanding and
flexible and opportunistic use of such strategies (IRA, 2007), enabling teachers to “populate
them with their own intentions” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 294). Such experiences help prepare teachers
to thoughtfully meet the demands of today’s schools and those of the future.
Practices that encourage change
A goal of teacher education is to initiate changes in instruction. Many factors impact the
change process. For example, vicarious and enactive experiences, group and dyadic discussions,
and teacher reflection have been found to facilitate change (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Gaffney &
Anderson, 1991; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). Moreover, these practices have
increased effectiveness when facilitated by a more experienced colleague. In university reading
clinics and other teacher education settings, this role is sometimes filled by literacy coaches, who
act as agents for change. As Toll (2005, p. 14) says, “Literacy coaches are in the change
business. Their jobs wouldn’t exist if someone didn’t want someone else to change.” As
revealed in the studies discussed below, positive change occurs when teachers and teacher
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
4
educators reflect on and dialogue together about instruction that they have observed or
participated in.
Facilitated discussion. Little (1981, p. 14) notes, "School improvement is most surely
and thoroughly achieved when teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly
concrete and precise talk about teaching practice.” This premise is support by Richardson and
Hamilton’s (1994) study of a staff development program involving reading comprehension
instruction. In this study, university professors worked with public school teachers to initiate
change. They found that one of the factors influencing change was dyadic and group
discussions. Teachers’ participation in these discussions was related to their sense of the
importance of the subject under discussion, its direct connection to what they could do with their
students, and the support they felt they would receive for making the changes that were being
discussed. Further, Richardson and Hamilton found that in situations where local teachers
initiated change and had ongoing opportunities to dialogue about these changes, teachers often
changed their beliefs prior to changing their practices or interactively with changes in practice. I
emphasize here the change in beliefs because of my assumption that when changes in practice
are coupled with changes in epistemology, such transformations impact teachers’ decision-
making processes and are more likely to continue. Like Rogoff, Matusov, and White (1996) and
Wilhelm, Baker, and Dube (2001), I believe that when teachers discuss and critically consider
their own assumptions about teaching and learning, they adapt their teaching in powerful,
positive ways. Discussion, then, plays an important role in implementing sustainable change.
Risko et al. (2009), in their survey of research on reading teacher education, looked at
change in both teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ knowledge. They found that teachers’ beliefs
changed in a positive way when teachers had enactive opportunities to interpret pupil data or
observe positive responses to instruction. In contrast, when course content was distanced from
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
5
application, findings were mixed about changes in teacher beliefs. In addition, their review of
research indicated that teachers’ knowledge of pedagogical content increased when such
concepts were coupled with procedural knowledge, when opportunities for application were
present, and when guidance was offered. Considering pedagogical application of beliefs and
knowledge, Risko et al. found stronger impact with “learning and doing” approaches to teacher
education that were coupled with guidance by a more-experienced colleague. Collaboration and
coaching were useful for supporting pedagogical change; the feedback and dialogic
conversations provided through coaching played important roles in the change process.
Teacher educators can support learning by providing opportunities for vicarious
experience through case studies and by providing guided practice in practicum or clinical
experiences (Amobi, 2005; Dunston, 2007; Metcalf, Ronen Hammer, & Kahlich, 1996).
University reading clinics provide an opportunity for teachers to discuss their own and other’s
instructional practices. Dunston (2007) studied 22 teachers in a university reading clinic and
found that, as they observed and discussed one another’s teaching, they were able to identify
behaviors that enhanced or reduced the effectiveness of instruction. These teachers, however,
had a difficult time identifying the underlying beliefs that influenced the instructional decision-
making of their peers. Without explicit instruction regarding theory or support for exploring
how beliefs influenced instruction, teachers in this study did not make these connections.
Cumulatively, these studies illustrate the importance of providing opportunities for
application of new practices which include discussion. Enactive experiences, such as tutoring in
a reading clinic, provide a foundation for learning. Extending the experience through dialogue
encourages teachers to voice their new understandings and adapt them to their own pedagogical
contexts. However, as Dunston (2007) and Risko et al. (2009) highlighted, teachers needed
facilitation to push their dialogue to the epistemological level. Thoughtful dialogue encourages
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
6
teachers to analyze their instructional decisions, the thought processes behind the decisions, and
the epistemology behind those thought processes. As teachers become more cognizant of the
thinking behind their own actions and those of other teachers, opportunities for growth and
change emerge. Literacy coaches can scaffold learning by mediating these experiences, probing,
prompting, and questioning to encourage revisioning of practice.
Dialogue is a means by which instructional support is provided and adjusted in the
teaching/learning process. Morris describes the support offered by a supervisor during a clinical
experience as “the handing down of a craft” (2003, p. 1). According to Morris, the role of the
supervisor or coach is providing feedback and guidance. Morris considered the impact of
discussions between the teacher and coach following bi-weekly tutoring sessions, as they
reflected together on the instructional needs of the students. He reported that “through these
discussions with (the) supervisor, (the teacher) was given the language to understand and to think
about” how the reading process occurred (Mock in Morris, 2003, p. 8). Further, Morris explains
that through these coaching interactions connections between theoretical constructs and
pedagogical action were made. Support provided in situ, as teachers implemented new practices,
allowed for dialogue about questions and concerns as they arose and encouraged teachers to
think about their own practice.
Mediated reflection. Reflecting on practice (their own and that of others) encourages
teachers to revisit instructional experiences and maximizes the construction of meaning
(Matanzo & Harris, 1999; Schon, 1987). Reflection on practice is a critical first-step for
improved instruction. Reflection “requires a journey into the deepest recesses of one’s self-
awareness, where failures, fears, and hopes are hidden” (Kagan, 1992). Through reflection we
recognize areas that need strengthening, consider alternatives, and reconstruct teaching actions.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
7
Scaffolds can be provided to encourage or enhance self-reflection, with reflection leading
to changes in practice. Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker (2000) found that support provided through
a university clinical experience afforded the opportunity for teachers to connect theory with
practice. In their study, teachers in two university clinics tutored daily for five weeks, with on-
the-spot support provided by the course instructor, which was followed up with individual
conferencing; instructors played a coaching role. Additionally, nine experienced teachers
selected, transcribed, reflected on, and rated their instructional discourse during tutoring
sessions. The self-assessment tool used to rate their discourse patterns was an extension of
scaffolding provided during discussion with the supervisor. Roskos et al. found that the self-
assessment tool may not have provided sufficient guidance and support for meaningful teacher
change in instructional discourse. Teachers in this study did, however, move toward a more
reasonable, reflective (less intuitive) stance, weighing evidence and clarifying goals. Roskos et
al. emphasize the importance of situating teacher learning within the real work of teaching. This
study, although recognizing the use of self-analysis as a useful tool for instructional
improvement, indicates that independent work alone may be insufficient to prompt changes in
teacher decision-making that link theory to practice.
Amobi (2005) studied the reflective practices of 31 preservice teachers in a university
clinic setting. Importantly, Amobi found that many of the preservice teachers she studied would
not risk the vulnerability of holding their teaching reactions up to scrutiny, even though course
grading was structured so as not to inhibit such reflection. She found that teachers who were
reflective were more likely to self-correct their emerging teaching skills. Their reflection
included not only consideration of the recent teaching episode, but also past teaching
experiences. This study, like that of Roskos et al., points to a need for mediation to encourage
meaningful reflection that connects present and past experiences.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
8
Dechert’s (2007) study was conducted in the same university reading clinic described in
the current study and provides important insight about the role of reflection in teacher learning.
Dechert looked closely at the reflective practices of two beginning teachers and found that
reflection was mediated by peers and through cognitive apprenticeship by the supervisor, who
played a coaching role. Written reflections and self-observation through the use of DVD
recordings of their tutoring also assisted the reflective process, enabling teachers to approach
their instructional decision-making from a flexible, responsive stance. Taken together, Amobi’s
(2005) and Dechert’s (2007) studies indicate the value of mediated reflection to support teacher
change, suggesting that coaching can enhance reflective practice. Coaching guides teachers
through the metacognitive processes they must access to flexibly and appropriately adapt what
they are learning to differing contexts.
Coaching for increased impact. While the practices of observed and enactive
experiences, discussion, and reflection each supported changes in teachers’ practice, the body of
research reviewed indicates that the effectiveness of each of these practices as a means of
professional development can be enhanced through the support of a more-experienced colleague.
Coaches can draw attention to “the rub between theory and practice” (Mills & Satterthwait,
2000, p. 31) by grounding questions and goals in authentic events. Literacy coaches work with
teachers where and when they are teaching, addressing problems of practice with an immediacy
not possible in many teacher education settings. Zwartz (2009) described the role of coaches in
this process, finding that “discussion of knowledge, beliefs, or experiences during coaching
conferences may elicit changes in teacher cognitions” (p. 252). Coaching provides
contextualized professional development, creating opportunities for the construction of beliefs
and practices to be grounded in teaching experiences. Individually, instructional improvements
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
9
can occur as teachers practice, observe results, and evaluate the effects on student outcomes.
Instructional coaches can support this process and encourage its ongoing use.
Mediational Role of Coaching
Sociocultural theories have been used to emphasize the role of social interaction in
learning (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). This meditational role is
also described in the gradual release of responsibility model (GRR), which emerged from a
cognitivist perspective (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The GRR model describes changing
instructional interactions as learners increase in proficiency. The model, which has been applied
to students’ literacy learning for over 30 years, (Duffy et al., 1986; Dole, Brown, & Trathen,
1996; Clark and Graves, 2005) has potential for adult learning as well, specifically teacher
instruction (Carrier, 1980; Sweeney, 2005). According to Wertsch (1991), a property of the
speech genre of formal instruction is that it is organized so that learners “are encouraged to take
over more and more of the regulative responsibilities” (p. 112). Pearson & Gallagher’s (1983)
gradual release of responsibility model conceptualizes this discourse and can be used as a guide
for gradually increasing learners’ responsibility. Through a sequence of explanation, guided
practice, corrective feedback, and independent practice and application, learners become
independent with the task (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). According to Pearson and Gallagher
(1983), any academic task can be conceptualized as requiring differing proportions of teacher
and learner responsibility for successful completion. Pearson has used the GRR model to
describe support provided to teachers (personal communication, October 27, 2007). In the
setting of the university clinic described in this study, support is created by the coach and by the
cultural tools in the setting. Such assistance can be termed scaffolding, the “bridge necessary to
support a learner’s performance” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). The gradual release of
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
10
responsibility model describes the journey across that bridge, depicting the varying amounts of
scaffolding needed as learners move toward independence.
There has been little research to describe the varying scaffolding provided to teachers by
coaches; a description of how coaching changes over time and how coaches adapt to teachers’
individual differences is lacking. A review of the research reveals models for coaching that are
static in nature, tending not to take into account how teachers’ needs and capacities change over
time. Some research has indicated that supervisors do not change their practices over time to
adjust to their mentees changing needs (Copeland, 1982; Williams et al., 1998) a finding which
is problematic.
MacGillivray, Ardell, and Curwen (2004) in their study of the implementation of a
scripted reading program, describe strains that emerged when coaching initiatives regarded
teachers similarly regardless of their previous experiences. Hibbert, Heydon, & Rich (2008)
suggest that coaching which characterizes teachers as blank slates and provide teachers with
“one-size-fits-all” professional development can increase the strain experienced during change,
treating all teachers “as though they were beginning from square one” (p. 314). Drawing on
these findings, Kaaisila & Lauriala (2010), suggested that “we must pay more attention to the
individual starting points” in teacher education (p. 861).
Although studies acknowledge that teachers’ professional development takes place at
different speeds and that their needs change over time (Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer,
Korthagen, & Bergen, 2008), there is a “paucity of research literature that reports on effects of
incremental phases of professional development” (Batt, 2010, p. 998). The current study looks
closely at those incremental phases, investigating how coaching changes over time.
This study investigates an adaptation of the gradual release of responsibility model. This
adapted model emerged from a pilot study in the clinic which is also the setting for the expanded
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
11
research described in the current investigation (Collet, 2008). The model, the Gradual Increase
of Responsibility (GIR) Model for Coaching, describes changes in coaching over time (see
Figure One). By modeling, making recommendations, asking probing questions, affirming
teachers’ appropriate decisions, and praising, coaches can provide scaffolding which moves
teachers toward interdependence and collaboration.
The model shows teachers’ gradually increasing
interdependence and collaboration as they rely less on the coach and engage more in collaboration.
Rather than a linear course, this change is shown as meandering, with coaches provided varying but
decreasing support. Rather than beginning at “0-0,” the path (shown by the curving line) acknowledges
the teachers’ previous knowledge and experience by starting at a point further up the axis; likewise, it
shows the assumption that teachers will continue to learn and grow in their profession by having the line
end below the upper corner.
The current study examines the use of this model, seeking to explore
how it can serve as both a descriptor and a guide for the coaching process.
Methodology
This inquiry is a mixed-method case study, examining the coaching process through
multiple cases over time, utilizing triangulation and cross-case analysis (Creswell, 2007;
Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Yin, 2003). The university clinic providing the context for the
study is in the Northeast region of the United States.
Participants
Participants in the study include three coaches (including myself) and all of the 46
teachers who tutored in this clinic over the course of three semesters. Coaches were professors
and doctoral students in the university’s literacy program. Teachers were both inservice and
preservice teachers completing literacy certifications for a K-12 Masters Degree in Literacy. The
teachers were previously licensed in either elementary education, special education, or secondary
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
12
English; one teacher’s previous license was in Spanish teaching. Most were working with
students in public schools at either the elementary or secondary level. In the clinic, most
teachers were matched with students at or near their current position and/or level of licensing;
exceptions occurred, however. Students in the clinic during these three semesters ranged from
grade 3 through grade 7.
Data Sources & Analysis
During initial phases of the study, data was collected through observations, interviews,
and examination of artifacts such as e-mail exchanges and teacher lesson plans and reflections,
with the accompanying recommendations made by coaches. To increase validity, an outside
reader coded a random sampling of 100 written coaching comments from teachers’ lesson plans
and reflections, with 96% of categorizations matching how I had coded them. Differences were
discussed and reconciled. Teachers were observed as they worked one-on-one tutoring students
in a reading clinic twice a week for four months. Field notes were also taken as teachers
interacted with peers and coaches in formal weekly debriefings and informal conversations. A
qualitative, recursive analysis was used during this phase to reveal patterns or trends in coaching
practices; these patterns included modeling near the beginning of the semester, along with
recommendations; asking questions to probe thinking as the semester progressed; and providing
affirmation and praise near the end of the semester.
In the final phase of the study (semester three), coaches completed weekly checklists for
each of the 11 weeks that teachers were tutoring. The checklists described the methods they
used to support teachers. There were 21 teachers tutoring in the clinic during that semester, and
each coach worked with a designated group of 5-8 teachers throughout the semester. The weekly
checklists asked coaches to indicate which of the coaching techniques they used most with each
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
13
teacher: modeling, recommendations, questions, affirmations, or praise. This data was analyzed
to determine which coaching methods were used most often during each week of the semester
and how these practices changed throughout the duration of the clinical experience. Near the end
of the semester, all of the coaches were interviewed regarding their coaching practices. To
provide triangulation of data, seven teachers were also interviewed, and this data was examined
to confirm/disconfirm initial findings and further explore patterns which had emerged. I
considered how these patterns related to the research question and examined the extent to which
the data reflected the intent of Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983) gradual release of responsibility
and coincided with the GIR coaching model (Collet, 2008). Data analysis included recursive
consideration of both qualitative and quantitative data. For example, coaches’ descriptions
during the interviews of different types of modeling lead me back to field notes, encouraging a
redefinition of some instructional actions and broader categorization of modeling behaviors.
Findings
Analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data suggests that the GIR coaching model
portrays the intentional scaffolding provided by coaches in this reading clinic and illustrates
changes in coaching that occurred as teachers became more proficient as tutors. Because
teachers began tutoring at-risk students early in the semester, they tackled the teaching task
holistically. Guidance provided by coaches enabled performance before competence (Cazden,
1981, 1988), allowing for practice as the teachers’ understanding increased. Coaches provided
the necessary support so that students were successfully taught from the very first session, and
responsibility for planning and teaching the lessons was gradually released to the teachers
throughout the semester. Coaches provided scaffolding as they engaged teachers in dialogue,
demonstrated teaching strategies, and reviewed lesson plans and teachers’ written reflections.
Support provided by coaches changed in both quantity and quality as the semester progressed.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
14
There was a decrease in the amount of support provided as teachers increased in competence and
confidence. Interactions with a coach supported their increasing expertise and experience.
Changes in coaching over time are portrayed in Figures Two through Seven, which are
displays of data from coaching checklists the three coaches completed during the final semester
of this study. On the checklists, coaches coded their coaching moves each week by checking the
box indicating their most prevalent coaching move with each teacher during that week. Findings
from both this quantitative data and also the qualitative data collected indicate that, in general,
modeling occurred most frequently at the beginning of the semester as teachers were learning
and trying new methodologies (see Figure Two; the low incidence of indicating modeling as a
coaching move is described below) . Additionally, coaches often made recommendations early
in the semester as teachers were determining goals for their students and deciding what
approaches to take; the changes over time in use of this coaching practice are shown in Figure
Three. As teachers gained more confidence in working with their students, coaches scaffolded
them by asking probing questions. Such questions pushed teachers to consider implications of
their instruction and how they might move forward (see Figure Four). Later in the semester,
coaching took the role of affirming teachers’ instructional decisions (Figure Five). When
teachers felt confident about what they were doing, coaches offered praise (see Figure Six).
Figure Seven shows the interplay of these coaching practices and how the coaches’ use of these
practices changed over the course of the semester. Elaboration and description of the phases in
this progression are provided below..
Changing support
As the semester progressed, the support that coaches provided changed in both quantity
and quality. There was a decrease in the amount of support provided as teachers increased in
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
15
competence and confidence. For example, comments on reflections and lesson plans became
shorter and less frequent. This comment, given early in the semester, was lengthy and was only
one of several suggestions provided when Betsy submitted her reflection:
What level of detail would you expect or hope for Caleb to remember? What
level of detail will he need to be able to retain to be successful in school and, most
importantly, life experiences? What strategies can you give Caleb to enable him to be
successful in these settings? Life isn’t about having total recall. I’m posing these
questions simply as food for thought as you chart an instructional course for Caleb. Being
able to find information may be more important and practical for Caleb than being able to
remember it.
These recommendations built on Betsy’s use of literal-level questions during tutoring sessions
but pushed her thinking about how such questions should be used. The guidance scaffolded
Betsy’s instructional decision making, focusing not only on what Caleb was ready to do, but on
how Betsy was ready to think about her instruction. Comments later in the semester tended to be
shorter:
Your goals for the rest of the semester are appropriate and I believe he’ll move toward
independence with the writing. This is an area Caleb really needs work with, so I’m glad
you’ve found something that works for him!
Further, there were many of these later reflections and lesson plans on which no comments were
provided because the coach felt that none were needed. Teachers were taking on increased
responsibility for instruction.
As illustrated in the examples above from Betsy’s reflections, coaching comments also
changed in quality. Whereas early in the semester the coaching provided tended to be more
directive, later comments took the form of confirming teachers’ decisions. Although the change
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
16
wasn’t perfectly linear, when I examined the data I found that support progressed through five
stages: modeling, making recommendations, posing questions, providing affirmation, and
offering praise.
Modeling. A review of the data indicated that early in the semester, coaches frequently provided
models for instruction. This modeling took several forms. At times, the coach directly modeled
an instructional approach with students while teachers observed, either side-by-side or behind the
glass. This modeling sometimes came at the teacher’s request and sometimes was suggested by
the coach. When interviewed, one teacher whose coach did not model strategies said, “I wish
she would have stepped in and modeled a lesson with my student. I think that would have really
helped.” All the coaches noted, however, that they were careful to preserve relationships when
they stepped in to model – both their teacher-coach relationships and the relationships the
teachers were developing with their students. In fact, one of the coaches, Camille, said that she
sometimes hesitated to model with students because she “didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes”
and “didn’t want to take away from what teachers were doing with their own students.” This
hesitancy, and a narrow definition of modeling, lead to coaches rarely identifying modeling as
their preponderant coaching move. However, during interviews at the end of the study, coaches
recognized that they had been modeling in ways other than working one-on-one with the
teacher’s student. When modeling was more broadly defined to include other ways of providing
models, field notes indicated that modeling occurred regularly near the beginning of the
semester. For example, Camille often provided models by showing DVD clips from previous
teachers who were using the strategies being considered. During coaching, I often included
models from online video resources to support teachers’ understanding of new approaches.
Additionally, all of the coaches talked about how they modeled teaching methods during
debriefings with the coach, without students present. For example Debra, the third coach,
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
17
modeled the steps of TMGRR (Kibby, 1995), a strategy to increase reading fluency. Modeling,
whether recorded or live, with students or without, was used regularly early in the semester to
support teacher change. Such observed experiences appeared to support teacher change as they
then used the strategies they had observed in their own instruction.
Making recommendations. Another coaching move used early in the semester, as teachers
were determining goals for their students and deciding what instructional approaches to take, was
making recommendations. Sometimes the recommendations came during informal discussions,
as Sandi acknowledged during our interview: “Even just talking after the lessons, suggesting
like a different strategy or something--- that helped a lot.” The following recommendation, a
comment made on a lesson plans near the beginning of the semester, suggests a specific text:
Give him an opportunity to transfer the skill of reading w/ expression to real text –
otherwise, it’s not serving a real purpose. Perhaps he could preview the sample paper,
‘Put Ups Are Important’ by reading it out loud attending to punctuation.
The following comment, written by a coach on an early lesson plan, makes an instructional
recommendation: “I feel like 30 minutes is too long to spend on word work; he will benefit from
time with connected text.” E-mail correspondence early in the semester also includes
recommendations:
Thanks for the update. Your insights about Caleb’s comprehension will be helpful as you
plan instruction. We do see evidence that vocabulary instruction would be helpful to
Caleb, so it is appropriate to include it. Before too long, you’ll also want to address his
word recognition needs. In your next reflection, would you please include your thinking
about this need? You may also want to consider ways to address Caleb’s off-track
comments. Let me know what you’re thinking about this in your next reflection as well.
Hope all goes well Thursday!
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
18
By making recommendations about points to consider in the required weekly written reflection,
coaches encouraged teachers to attend to important instructional goals, scaffolding teachers to
form habits of focused reflection. As seen in Figure Three, the incidence of coaches making
recommendations as their most prevalent coaching move decreased sharply after week four of
the semester. Making recommendations was supportive at the beginning of the semester, when
coaches assumed more of an “expert” role. In an interview at the end of the semester, one of the
coaches mention that she was looking for expertise at that point: “I mean, I knew that obviously
you wouldn’t be in clinic unless you were, well, experienced and had the background and
whatnot.”
Posing questions. As teachers gained more confidence in working with their students, the
coaches scaffolded them by asking probing questions. The weekly checklist showed that
although questioning was used throughout the semester, it was the predominant technique in the
middle of the semester (see Figure Four). A coaching comment on Sherri’s lesson plan mid-way
through the semester shows the transition from making recommendations to asking questions:
Sherri, tell me about your thinking for using The Biggest, Best Snowman and Frederick.
Would it be more appropriate to use grade-level or longer text with Jason? Text with less
pictorial support? Is Jason reading at his instructional level, based on results of his
diagnostic testing at the beginning of the semester? As Vygotsky reminds us, instruction
needs to “march in front” of his current ability.
Another example from an e-mail discussion in the middle of the semester says: “Your
collaborative use of the rubric seems to be supporting James’ growth as a writer. Do you think
he is internalizing any of the features of the rubric? Or will he continue to benefit from having
rubrics available?” Such questions push teachers to consider implications of their instruction and
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
19
how they might move forward. Whereas by making recommendations, the coach is assertive in
directing instruction, questioning increases the teacher’s responsibility.
Providing affirmation. Later in the semester, coaching took the role of affirming teachers’
instructional decisions; for example, this coach’s comment on a teacher reflection specifically
addresses the low-risk learning environment the teacher, Kayla, is trying to create: “You’ve
worked hard to create an environment where she feels comfortable taking risks. This is so
important for struggling readers!” Similarly, commenting on Cindy’s written reflection late in
the semester, the coach affirmed her decision to display strategy posters in the tutoring cubby:
“Having these resources visually available seems very effective for Brian.” Affirmations denote
a context in which teachers are making sound instructional decisions but are still looking to their
coaches for confirmation that they are doing the right thing.
Offering praise. When the teachers felt confident about what they were doing, coaches often
offered praise. Not only was it warranted, it helped them to see themselves as the literacy
specialists their master’s degrees were certifying them for. Immediately after an effective lesson,
Camille (coach) exclaimed, “You did an amazing job with John today – he is really growing as a
reader!” An e-mail to Samantha at the end of the semester included the following: “Samantha,
watching you work with John is such a joy! Your rapport with him allows you to accomplish so
much and have both of you enjoy the experience.” Although Betsy’s student was less
cooperative, there were also successes for her to celebrate. Here is an excerpt from an e-mail to
Betsy on the same day: “Betsy, what a great lesson today! It was worth the hand-wringing,
wasn’t it!” By offering praise, coaches were utilizing a strengths-based approach. Coaches were
cognizant of the fact that by the end of the semester these teachers would have the credentials to
be looked to as literacy experts in their schools. Feeling confident that the teachers were now
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
20
equipped with the tools they would need in these expert roles, we sought to enhance their
feelings of efficacy by providing warranted praise.
Exceptions. In general, coaching support generally moved from being instructional and very
supportive to being affirming and providing praise. As noted earlier, however, the change
wasn’t entirely linear. Often comments included multiple types of feedback. For example, when
Sandi indicated that she was planning to have Jason use a thesaurus during his writing, my
comments included both recommendations and a question:
You might first want to see what words are in Jason’s brain before going to an outside
resource – perhaps he just needs his awareness raised about using interesting words.
What did his score on the PPVT indicate about his vocabulary knowledge? I’m leery of
sending him first to an outside source, since that can be so disruptive during the writing
process. It would be appropriate to follow up with the thesaurus, if needed, during
editing, however.
Circumstances sometimes seemed to call for a deviation from the progression through
phases offering less support. For example, after Caleb had spent a tutoring session side-tracking
most of Betsy’s instructional plans with intentional off-task comments and poor behavior
choices, Betsy expressed extreme frustration. Since Caleb was still in the clinic, waiting to be
picked up, I asked her if she felt it would be helpful for me to have a conversation with him. She
asked me to do so. Taking this action was a side-step from our coaching path toward increased
teacher responsibility, but took into account what Betsy was (and was not) ready to do with
assistance. In general, however, coaching followed the trend represented by the steps outlined
above. Gena acknowledged these different roles during our interview, recognizing that her
coach “offered suggestions or advice” and asked questions that “made me think, ‘Oh, I didn’t
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
21
think of that before.’” Through the coaching process, teachers gradually increased the
responsibility they were taking for instruction.
Ongoing Collaboration. Although Pearson & Gallagher’s (1983) GRR model shows students
moving toward independence, a significant finding from this study was that coaching in the
clinic appeared to move teachers toward increased collaboration. Collaboration played a role
throughout the clinical experience; however, as the semester progressed, the coaches’ tended to
move from a consulting stance to an increasingly collaborative one.. By the end of the semester,
coaches began to treat the teachers as colleagues, a stance that was reflected in the teachers
comments: “It was good to think at it from another perspective. I think having two perspectives
is definitely important,” Bonnie said. This comment, I believe, reflects Bonnie’s feeling at the
end of the semester that she and her coach were collaborators in defining her student’s needs and
held equally valuable perspectives.
In addition to the collaborative relationships teachers developed with their coaches, they
also developed collaborative relationships with other teachers in the clinic. In the clinic, these
collegial conversations were often facilitated by coaches, a practice that was valued by teachers.
“I liked when our small group got together sometimes,” Sandi said in our interview, “because
then you’d have more people’s opinions.” Increasingly, teachers in the clinic spontaneously
sought out one another’s feedback as well. In addition, it appears that fostering collaborative
relationships in the clinic may have played a role in encouraging such relationships outside of the
clinic. Teachers spoke of the valuable information gleaned from collaborative conversations
with school colleagues. “My teammates give me a lot of things that they’ve known to be
research based,” Michelle said. She spoke of a colleague who “has a lot of good ideas and
different strategies and things to try with the kids.” “I’m open to her suggestions,” Michelle
explained, “because I’ve developed a respect for her knowledge and her teaching abilities.”
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
22
Michelle’s description of her trusted colleague was similar to the relationship she had developed
with her coach in the clinic. Teachers’ interdependence and collaboration increased as they
relied less on the coach and engaged more in collaborative discourse with both the coach and
other teachers.
Descriptions of coaching episodes (in discussions, reflections, and other forms of
feedback) portray the gradual increase of responsibility as teachers became more skillful.
Quantitative data provided additional evidence of the GIR model as an accurate description of
the coaching path in this clinical setting. In general, coaching support moved from being
instructional and very supportive to being affirming and providing praise. We found, however,
that coaches adapted the scaffolding they provided based on the experiences and needs of the
teachers, resulting in changes to how the model was applied.
Discussion & Implications
Results of this study indicate that by modeling, making recommendations, asking probing
questions, affirming teachers’ appropriate decisions, and praising, coaches can provide
scaffolding which stays within teachers’ ZPD and moves them toward interdependence and
collaboration. The GIR model adapts Pearson & Gallagher’s (1983) gradual release of
responsibility to provide a coaching model that reflects teachers’ growing increase in
responsibility, characterized by interdependence and collaboration. This model emphasizes the
dynamic nature of teachers’ zone of proximal development and the importance of staying within
this zone during coaching. Rather than a linear course, this change is shown as meandering. The
data instantiates the variable mediation provided by the coach as teachers’ competencies were
emerging and the coach leveraged teachers’ abilities by providing what I’ll term progressive
scaffolding – support that changed to match teachers’ increasing ability. An additional feature of
this coaching model is the acknowledgement that teachers bring funds of knowledge (Moll,
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
23
Amanti, & Gonzalez, 2001) to any learning situation and that they will continue to learn and
grow in their profession.
This study examined coaching and teacher change within the particular context of a university
reading clinic. As such, results of this study cannot be broadly generalized. Nevertheless, some
insights are offered. Although the participants and contexts of the clinic in this study varied
over time, teachers showed evidence of application and transformation of learning about literacy
instruction. Interactions with a coach appeared to support the teachers’ increasing expertise.
Teachers demonstrated deeper understanding of strategies for literacy instruction and showed
evidence of flexibly and appropriately applying their new learning as tutors in the reading clinics
and in their own classrooms. However, the degree to which they applied and transformed the
concepts and practices they had learned seemed to be influenced by: 1) their conditions,
including their comfort in the setting, 2) their actions, including their focus on student goals and
the planning and reflecting they had done, and 3) the settings and the people with whom they
were working. Future studies should address how these factors interact with the coaching model.
GIR, a description of how coaching changes over time, has the potential to enable
coaches to thoughtfully enact such changes and improve the effectiveness of coaching. Just as
teachers in classrooms need to consider the varying needs of their students, coaches must find
and follow the meandering path to mediate teachers’ learning while increasing teachers’
responsibility for making instructional decisions. The GIR model can provide a framework to
help coaches and teacher educators tailor their support to meet teachers’ needs for feedback and
evaluation.
In this study, coaching embodied the role of social interaction in teacher change and
appeared to facilitate ongoing teacher interdependence and collaboration with the coach and
colleagues. This unexpected but scintillating finding has pertinence in today’s educational
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
24
climate. School reform literature emphasizes collaboration and the organization, rather than the
individual, as the unit of change (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy,
2004). Interdependence is a personality trait characteristic of mature individuals (Gandhi, 1922;
Covey, 1989, 1990) and inherent in collaboration. Collaboration is a necessary facet of
professional learning communities (PLCs), which are being encouraged throughout the country
today as a means for improving education (DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Senge, 1990). Thus, the
coaching process instantiated by this study prepares teachers for participation in communities of
learners. By following the pattern of modeling, making recommendations, asking questions,
providing affirmations, and giving praise, coaches can help teachers apply new learning and
move them toward collaborative interdependence. Findings of this study support a gradual
increase of responsibility (GIR) model for coaching to scaffold teacher change.
This study’s findings have a range of implications for future research and practice. First,
because this study was limited to one university clinic, it is important to consider how the GIR
model might be utilized in clinics with differing practices. A cross-clinic study is underway to
explore these implications (Collet & Hayden, 2011). Secondly, it is compelling to consider the
utility of the GIR model outside of the clinical setting. In recent years, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of literacy coaches working in school settings [due in part to Reading
First, ARRA funding, and new research verifying the positive impact of coaching on student
achievement (Brettschneider, 2009; Cantrell and Hughes, 2008; Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2010;
Hough, Pinnell, Bryk, & Kerbow, 2008)]. It will be important to study coaches’ use of the GIR
model in school settings. In both clinical and school settings, longitudinal studies that consider
whether the GIR model produces lasting change in teachers’ attitudes and instruction would also
be valuable.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
25
While such studies will certainly add rich description to the use of the Gradual Increase
of Responsibility model for coaching, the study reported here, along with my previous research,
provides sufficient support for the following recommendations. First, because previous research
indicates that coaches sometimes do not account for teachers’ previous experience and
continuing growth (Copeland, 1982; Hibbert et al., 2008; MacGillivray et al., 2004; Williams et
al., 1998) based on the findings of this study, the GIR model can be recommended as a guide for
considering such information. University-based reading clinics that use coaches or supervisors
to guide instruction could provide information about the GIR model as part of the training for
these coaches. Understanding the practices coaches can use to guide teachers to increased
competence and confidence can help us to approach the clinical experience in new and perhaps
more efficacious ways. This study helps to clarify the varying roles that coaches or supervisors
can play throughout a teacher education experience. Similarly, the study can provide guidance
for coaches in school settings. In such settings, coaches work with teachers who have a wide
variety of experience and needs. The GIR model can be used by coaches as they consider these
variabilities; coaches can “place” teachers on the GIR model as a way to begin considering the
type of coaching support they might provide (keeping in mind GIR’s meandering path, which
acknowledges the need for varying support rather than a linear progression through phases of the
model).
Another recommendation growing from this study that is particularly relevant for coaches
in school settings is the final stage of the GIR model: Interdependence and Collaboration. As
coaches in schools seek to provide meaningful, job-embedded professional development and
strengthen the work of professional learning communities within their schools, the GIR model
can serve as a guide to the shared work that teachers are encouraged to undertake in today’s
schools (DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Senge, 1990).
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
26
Coaching for gradual increase of responsibility (GIR) appeared to facilitate instructional
change by situating the teacher as an active constructor of knowledge and allowing for
appropriation of ideas through multiple interactions over time. Coaching provided and supported
discussion, reflection, and observed and enacted experiences, events that have been shown to
improve teachers’ instructional decision-making (Amobi, 2005; Dechert, 2007; Dunston, 2007;
Risko et al., 2009; Wilhelm et al., 2001). By embodying the stance that good teaching is
dependent upon knowledge of where the learner is and an understanding of where the learner is
ready to move next, coaches not only facilitate the learning of teachers, they also model this
sociocultural concept as a theoretical consideration for learners of all ages.
AUTHOR NOTE
Partial support for this project was provided by the Center for Literacy and Reading
Instruction at the University at Buffalo/SUNY.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
27
References
Amobi, F.A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of
teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115-
126.Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Batt, E.G. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to
implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 997-1005.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational
change, Vol. 8: Implementing and sustaining innovations (R-1589/8-HEW). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brettschneider, A. (2009). PLCs Meet PCs: Technology-Supported Literacy Coaching Within
and Between Disciplines Dowloaded May 23, 2009 from
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/PLC_meets_PLC_4.20.09.pdf.
Cantrell, S., & Hughes, H. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation: An
exploration of the effects of extended professional development with coaching. Journal
of Literacy Research, 40 (1), 95-127.
Carrier, C. (1980). Developmental environments for teachers. Theory into Practice (19) 4, 240-
247.
Cazden, C.B. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone
of proximal development. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative
Human Cognition, 3, (1), 5-8.
Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
28
City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., Fiarman, S.E., and Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional Rounds in
Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Clark, K., & Graves, M. (2004). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading
Teacher, 58 (6), 570-580.
Collet, V. (2007). Using new tools: Factors influencing the transfer of teacher learning.
Unpublished manuscript.
Collet, V. (2008). Coaching today’s teachers: Mentoring using new literacies. Paper presented
at the 2008 National Reading Conference, Dec., 2008.
Collet, V. & Hayden, E. (2011). The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model: Coaching for
teacher change. Paper under review for presentation at the 2011 Annual Conference of
the American Educational Research Association, April 2011, New Orleans, LA.
Copeland, W. D. (1982). Student teachers’ preference for supervisory approach. Journal of
Teacher Education, 33(2), 32–36.
Costa, A.L. & Garmston, R.J. (1994, 2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance
schools (1
st
and 2
nd
ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Free Press.
Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting
versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher
Education (24)3, 499-514.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
29
Dearman, C. & Alber, S. (2005). The changing face of education: Teachers cope with challenges
through collaboration and reflective study. The Reading Teacher, 58, 634-
640.
Dechert, D. (2007). Creating a “new pedagogy” for reflection in reading education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-
88.
Dole, J. & Donaldson, R. (2006). What am I supposed to do all day? Three big ideas for the
reading coach. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 486-488.
Donnelly, A., Morgan, D. DeFord, D. Files, J., Long, S., Mills, H., Stephens, D. & Styslinger, M.
(2005). Transformative professional development: Negotiating knowledge with an
inquiry stance. Language Arts, 82, 336-346.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M. Vavrus, L., Book, C., Putnam, J. Wesselman, R. (1986). The
relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and
student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21, (3), 237-252.
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and a university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 328-336.
DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8) p 6-11.
Elish-Piper, L. & L’Allier, S. (2010). Exploring the relationship between literacy coaching
and student reading achievement in grades K-1. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49
(2), 162-174.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
30
Research brief downloaded June 21, 2010 from http://www.niu.edu/cisll/documents/Elish-
Piper%20&%20L'Allier.pdf.
Fernstermacher, G. & Berliner, D. (1985). Determining the value of staff development. The
Elementary School Journal, 85, 281-314.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). Understanding change, in The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership,
(Second Edition). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Gaffney, J., & Anderson, R.C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching
and learning. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives,
programs, and policies (pp. 184-198). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gandhi, M. (1922) The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahmedabad, India; Navjivan
Press. (Printed in the 1960’s and 1970’s).
Goodard, R., Hoy, W. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical
Developments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Educational Research, , 3-
13.
Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15, 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (2004). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching,
(8) 3, 381-391.
Hasbrouck, J. & Denton, C.A. (2007). Student-focused coaching: A model for reading coaches.
The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 690-693.
Hibbert, K.M., Heydon, R.M., & Rich, S.J. (2008). Beacons of light, rays, or sun catchers? A
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
31
case study of the positioning of literacy teachers andn their knowledge in neoliberal
times. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 303-315.
Hoffman, J. & Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What
your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher should.
Reading Research Quarterly (35)1, 28-44.
Hough, H., Pinnell, G.S., Bryk, A., Kerbow, D. (2008). Measuring change in the practice of
teachers engaged in Literacy Collaborative professional development. Paper presented
at the National Reading Conference, December, 2008.
International Reading Association (2007). Teaching reading well: A synthesis of the
International Reading Association’s research on teacher preparation for reading
instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kaasila, R. & Lauriala, A. (2010). Toward a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher
change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 854-862.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62 (2), 129-169.
Kibby, M.W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision
making model. Delaware: International Reading Association.
Kibby, M., & Barr, R. (1999). The education of reading clinicians. In D. Evensen & P.
Mosenthal (Eds.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol. 6): Reconsidering the
role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy (pp. 3- 40). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Lieberman, A. (1997). Teacher change and staff development. Curriculum Inquiry, 27 (3), 379-
384.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
32
Little, J. W. (1981). School success and staff development in urban desegregated schools: a
summary of recently completed research. Paper presented and the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
MacGillivray, L., Sassiter Ardell, A., Sauceda Curwen, M., & Palma, J. (2004). Colonized
teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching
Education, 15(2), 131–144.
Matanzo, J.B. & Harris, D.L. (1999). Encouraging metacognitive awareness in preservice
literacy courses. Yearbook of the College Reading Association, 21, 201-225.
Metcalf, K. K., Ronen Hanuner, M. A., & Kahlich, P. A. (1996). Alternatives to field-based
experiences: The comparative effects of on-campus laboratories. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 3,. 271-283.
Mills, M., & Satterthwait, D. (2000). The disciplining of pre-service teachers: Reflections on the
teaching of reflective teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 29–38.
Moll, L.C. (1990). Introduction. In L.C. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology, pp. 1-27. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Moore, J.K. (2004). Mentoring teacher change: Even Cinderella had a coach. In R. B. Cooter
(Ed.). Perspectives on rescuing urban literacy education: Spies, saboteurs, and saints
(pp. 165-182).
Morris, D. (2003). Of Studebakers and reading clinicians. 2003 American Reading Forum
Online Yearbook. Retrieved March 31, 2009 from
http://www.americanreadingforum.org/Yearbooks/03_yearbook/pdf/Morris.pdf.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
33
Perkins, S. J. (1998). On becoming a peer coach: Practices, identities, and beliefs of
inexperienced coaches. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13 (3), 235-254.
Poole, M. & Okeafor, K. (1989). The effects of teacher efficacy and interactions among
educators on curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4 (2),
146-161.
Richardson, V. & Hamilton, M.L. (1994). The practical argument staff development process. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A Case of
reading instruction (pp. 109-134). New York: Teachers College Press.
Risko, V.J., Roller, C. Cummins, C. Bean, R., Block, C.C., and Anders, P. (2009). Making sense
of reading teacher education research and prospects for future research. Presentation at
the annual conference of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Rogoff. B., Matusov, B., and White, S. (1996). Models of Teaching and Learning: Participation
in a Community of Learners. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (eds.), The Handbook of
Cognition and Human Development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 388-414.
Roskos, K., Boehlen, S., Walker, B. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation: The
influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic. The
Elementary School Journal, 100 (3), 229-252.
Ross, J.A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of
teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 381-394.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Currency Doubleday.
Shanklin, N. (2007). How can you gain the most from working with a literacy coach? Voices
from the Middle, 14 (4), 44-47.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
34
Stein, M.K., & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process
of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.
Sweeney, D. (2003). Learning along the way: Professional development by and for teachers.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S, & Rodriguez, M. (2005). The CIERA School
Change Project: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school
reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, (40)1, 40-69.
Tharpe, R. G. and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge
University Press.
Toll, C.A. (2005). The literacy coaches survival guide. Newark, Delaware: International
Reading Association.
Tschannen-Moran, M. ve Woolfolk, Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M.
Cole, V. Alfred-Steiner, S. Schribener, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans. Cambridge, MA.
Harvard University Press.
Walker, L. (2008, March). Probing the influence of school context on coaching activity: Two
contrasting cases. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, New York.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong
literacy. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Williams, E. A., Butt, G. W., Gray, C., Leach, S., Marr, A., & Soares, A. (1998). Mentors’ use of
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
35
dialogue within a secondary initial teacher education partnership. Educational Review,
50(3), 225–239.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yust, J. (August, 1997). Cognitive coaching: A multiple case study. St. Catharines, Ontario:
Brock University.
Zwart, R.C., Wubbels, T. Bergen, T., & Bolhuis, S. (2009). Which characteristics of a
reciprocal peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by teachers and their
students? Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 243-257.
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
36
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
37
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
38
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
39
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
40
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
41
Collet, V.S. (2012) Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
42
