Growing the Good Stuff

Literacy and Teaching as Situated Practice

Sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives guided how I studied the literacy practices and interactions in the school. These perspectives have important implications for understanding literacy and teaching in terms of the ways in which they are socially, culturally, historically, and politically situated. From this stance, literacy can be understood as a tool for exploring, claiming, or transforming thought and experience (Gutiérrez, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). Instead of viewing reading and writing as discrete skills in isolation, I view literacy as an ideological practice within communities that is “implicated in power relations and embedded in specific cultural meanings and practices” (Street, 1995, p. 1). To understand literacy is, thus, to understand it in terms of people’s literacy practices, values, beliefs, and actions. This perspective is important for understanding how literacy teaching practices in a school are situated not just within a classroom but in a larger context. Literacy activities include processes as well as social events and interactions and the various social spaces we inhabit as part of our personal histories (Gutiérrez, 2004). From this perspective, there is not one literacy, but multiple literacies (many different ways of reading and writing connected to speaking and listening), each embedded in specific sociocultural practices and each connected to a distinctive and political set of norms, values, and beliefs about language, literacy, and identity (Scribner & Cole, 1981).

In terms of teaching, sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives highlight teaching as a culturally sensitive and interactive process related to the social variables of power, race, class, and gender (Apple, 1996; Luke, 2003). This is important for understanding how power is constructed and enacted in educational settings. Schools are places that potentially reproduce existing hierarchies, with privilege given to particular kinds of knowledge or experiences. They are institutions with the goal of changing people’s values, skills, and knowledge bases (Heath, 1983). The resulting teaching practices are in response to the particular political context, such as high-stakes testing, within which the school is situated (Baker & Luke, 1991). Children’s opportunities to learn are governed by those with power, wherein schools both afford and constrain their ability to learn because of the way everyday interactions are supported and shaped by the institution of schooling (Lewis, Encisco, & Moje, 2007). Furthermore, the use of high-stakes testing to make decisions about students and schools has the ability to preserve social status, as those with power are able to maintain and influence the structures that work to their own children’s advantage (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). These perspectives informed my understanding of how teaching, in particular the actions taken by the literacy coach, operated as a political act within the school.

High-Stakes Testing

High-stakes testing highlights the political landscape of schooling, where test scores are equated with student success, as well as school success (R. S. Brandt, 2007). These tests are considered “high-stakes” because of their weight in making decisions about grade-level promotion, student graduation, and other important decisions that affect school communities (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Madaus, 1988). Some also consider the publication of test results as another dimension that adds to its being “high-stakes” (McNeil, 2000). While policy makers may suggest the positive impact of high-stakes testing in terms of the raising of scores (Linn, 2000; Popham, 1987), research contradicts these findings, showing that increased student achievement and higher test scores are not synonymous of one another (Lee, 2006). Researchers who question the effect of high-stakes testing on student achievement point out the discrepancy in test scores when compared with other data such as reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2006), drop-out rates for minority students (Foote, 2007), and the exclusion of some students from the testing pool (e.g., students who receive special education support; Amrein & Berliner, 2002).

Research on the effects of high-stakes tests has found that an overemphasis on testing leads to a narrowing of the curriculum with a focus on basic skills and test preparation. Using qualitative meta-analysis, Au (2007) reviewed 49 qualitative studies related to high-stakes testing in the United States. He found there is a significant relationship between the implementation of high-stakes testing and changes in the curriculum at three levels: control of the content (mainly narrowing of the curriculum), control of the format (generally resulting in fragmenting the curriculum into smaller, isolated parts), and pedagogical control (largely the use of teacher-centered practices). Au concluded that high-stakes tests encourage curricular alignment to the tests and that high-stakes accountability provides external control over teaching (Moe, 2003).

In addition, because teachers are pressured to “teach to the test,” they generally spend more time teaching tested objectives with little or no attention paid to untested objectives (Shepard, 1990) and take instructional time away from nontested subjects like social studies and science (Jacob, 2005). There is also a positive correlation between the greater the stakes of a test and the amount of time spent on test preparation (Herman & Golan, 1991).

Decontextualized test preparation, or teaching to the test, reduces teaching to an act of raising test scores through drill on practice items and benchmark tests, even to the extent of replacing the curriculum with test preparation (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001), and diminishes teaching practices to the level of answering and analyzing students’ answers to multiple-choice questions because the pressure is so great to succeed on them (M. L. Smith, 1991).

Materials that resemble tests are another consequence of high-stakes testing (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985). These materials often replace the use of children’s literature, and researchers have attributed this to various reasons that include time constraints; a lack of encouragement, or even discouragement, from administrators; and because teachers may not see the value in using children’s literature (MacGillivray, Ardell, & Palma, 2004; Williams & Bauer, 2006), despite a large body of research that contradicts this belief (e.g., Morrow & Gambrell, 2000; Roser, Battle, & Zoch, 2009).

The kind of teaching which results from the severe pressure to raise test scores is often controlled and conflicts with teachers’ understanding of excellent teaching, especially for students from diverse backgrounds (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). Such practices often create inequities in schooling such as the amount of time spent on test preparation and the use of commercially prepared materials at the expense of more authentic reading materials (Camilli & Monfils, 2004), and raise concerns for the quality of instruction such as whether or not teachers are able to take into account the sociocultural needs of their students (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; Skerrett & Hargreaves, 2008). Researchers have cautioned against the use of high-stakes testing because of the potentially damaging effects it has on teaching, teachers, and students. In particular, researchers are concerned with the negative effects of high-stakes testing on minority and low-performing students in terms of graduation rates and the over classification of minority students in special education, which exempts them from taking the same standardized tests as their peers (Figlio & Getzler, 2002; Haney, 2000; Valenzuela, 2005).

Teachers’ Response to High-Stakes Testing

Research that focuses on teachers’ response to high-stakes testing has demonstrated that teachers construct varied responses to curricular mandates (e.g., Grant, 2001; Sloan, 2006). Teaching under the regime of high-stakes testing makes it difficult for teachers to navigate accountability pressures and still teach in academically challenging, student-centered ways. Most often, research studies have documented how teachers acquiesce to mandated curricula and testing cultures through practices such as focusing solely on tested objectives (Shepard, 1990), using materials that resemble the tests (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985), taking time away from nontested subjects (Jacob, 2005), and increasing time spent on test preparation (Hoffman et al., 2001).

In a study of how two teachers in Texas differed in their enactment of language arts teaching, Dooley and Assaf (2009) noted that context matters in terms of understanding teachers’ varied approaches to high-stakes testing despite sharing similar beliefs. Their findings supported the literature that urban schools are most often negatively affected by testing pressures (e.g., aligning instruction with testing), thereby encouraging inequitable teaching practices. In a similar study of a reading specialist, Assaf (2008) found that working in the context of a school district that strongly pushed testing curriculum presented challenges where the reading specialist negotiated her own beliefs and knowledge about teaching. The result was that she abandoned her previous instruction to accommodate teaching to the test, despite compromises to her professional identity.

By contrast, S. A. Parsons, Metzger, Askew, and Carswell (2011) showed how having support from administration with the provision of professional development made a difference for one Title I school as they adopted project-based literacy instruction. In this case, the context where teachers worked allowed them to construct alternative responses to accountability standards, where their instruction was driven by innovative approaches rather than restrictive curricular mandates. Specifically, the authors found that the teachers used interdisciplinary instruction, encouraged student collaboration, evoked student choice, and incorporated active participation into their teaching.

In addition to the importance of context, some studies have argued for the importance of resistance for teachers in sustaining their professional commitments and continuing to provide quality literacy instruction (e.g., Dooley, 2005; Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008), whereas other studies have noted the importance of teacher agency in navigating high-stakes testing pressures (e.g., Zoch, 2013). In terms of practice, a common approach used by teachers is the teaching of testing as a distinct genre in which students learn the features of the test while teachers ensure their own familiarity with the test ahead of time (e.g., Hornof, 2008; Santman, 2002; Shelton & Fu, 2004).

In a study of how 10 teachers tackled high-stakes testing, Sleeter and Stillman (2007) drew on the case studies of elementary and middle school teachers in California who worked in underperforming schools. Grounded in the research that indicates a qualified teacher has the greatest influence on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000), Sleeter and Stillman found that the strategies these teachers enacted to navigate standards and accountability pressures included prioritizing standards to address the problem of too many standards to cover; organizing content around meaningful, culturally relevant material; creating a culture of going to college; and using social learning and collaborative teaching processes.

Understanding how teachers position themselves and negotiate complex curricular demands offers important insight into the educational system at large. The decisions they make help us understand how they make sense of, negotiate, and reconstruct educational policies (Menken & Garcia, 2010). Researchers who examine the complexity of teacher negotiation have highlighted the ways in which teachers’ beliefs and prior experiences influence their actions, have identified ways in which teachers redesign the curriculum and classroom spaces in response to their contexts, and have examined the complexities of how teachers construct their identity in response to multiple ideologies (e.g., Handsfield, Crumpler, & Dean, 2010; Rex & Nelson, 2004). Similarly, researchers who have investigated teachers’ interactions with policy, such as language policy, offer valuable insight for understanding policy as something that is dynamic and performed moment-to-moment in everyday social practices (McCarty, 2011). In their study of how primary school English teachers in China enacted a curricular reform, Zhang and Hu (2010) highlighted factors that influenced teachers’ interpretation and construction of the pedagogical approaches—their beliefs about language teaching, their understanding of the curriculum, their perception of students’ needs, the prevalent instructional practices in their context, the available resources, and the support for the adoption of the innovation.

Literacy Coaching

Literacy coaching is an evolving role responsive to and representative of changes in schools. Bean and Wilson (1981) reported the emergence of literacy coaches as far back as the 1930s as teachers responded to needs for improving reading programs, mainly as supervisors. During the 1960s, the role of literacy coaches shifted to that of “colleagueship” with more of an emphasis placed on working in equal relationships with teachers. In current times, especially with federal legislation focused on reading achievement, the role of the literacy coach has received increasingly more attention. According to the position statement of the International Reading Association (2004), literacy coaches are supposed to support teachers and provide ongoing professional development. Sailors and Shanklin (2010) elaborated further to define coaching as the “sustained classroom-based support from a qualified and knowledgeable individual who models research-based strategies and explores with teachers how to incorporate these practices using the teachers’ own students” (p. 1).

In a synthesis of the literature on literacy coaches, L’Allier, Elish-Piper, and Bean (2010) illustrated the complexity and variability involved with being a literacy coach. They attempt to bring some guidance to a role that may vary from context to context by identifying seven guiding principles for literacy coaches in the elementary grades. These include the following: Coaching requires specialized knowledge; time spent working directly with teachers should be the focus; collaborative relationships are a key to successful coaching; there are a core set of activities that coaches should focus on (i.e., discussing student assessments with teachers); coaches need to be intentional and flexible; coaches must be literacy leaders in their schools; and coaching evolves over time. Based on empirical studies, the researchers developed these guiding principles as a way of suggesting what literacy coaches need in terms of qualifications and how they should spend their time.

As a form of professional development embedded in schools, literacy coaching offers promising outcomes to promote student learning (Toll, 2005). Subsequently, literacy coaching has received increasingly more attention from researchers. In summation, the majority of the literature on literacy coaches can be divided into three categories: how coaches spend their time, the impact they have on students and/or teachers, and what teachers think about coaches. Researchers interested in literacy coaches’ roles (e.g., Dole & Donaldson, 2006; Roller, 2006; Walpole & Blarney, 2008) have examined issues such as building relationships with teachers (e.g., Rainville & Jones, 2008), supporting teachers with data-driven decision making (e.g., Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2010), and working directly with students (e.g., Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, & Zigmond, 2010). Other areas of research examine literacy coaches’ relationships with teachers (e.g., Ippolito, 2010; Joyce & Showers, 2003; Stephens et al., 2011), teacher practice (e.g., Steckel, 2009; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010; Walpole, McKenna, Uribe-Zarain, & Lamitina, 2010), and student achievement (e.g., Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011).

One study that highlights the complexity of literacy coaching examined first-year elementary literacy coaches as they participated in professional development through a district–university partnership (Hunt & Handsfield, 2013). The researchers focused on how the literacy coaches positioned themselves within their institutional spaces, especially how their emotions related to issues of power, identity, and positioning. They found that coaches experienced tension with needing to present themselves as literacy experts while also trying to form collaborative and trusting relationships with teachers. Hunt and Handsfield concluded that literacy coaching is much more complex than just outlining a list of roles that a literacy coach should fill. They argued that the role of the literacy coach needs to be reconceptualized with more attention paid to their social positioning and that definitions of literacy coaching need to be made based on the local context, taking into consideration teachers’ needs and the school environment.

The majority of studies about literacy coaching have been in elementary school settings, specifically with Grades K-3. The reason for this can be attributed to the enactment of Reading First (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), which includes the use of reading (literacy) coaches whose work is restricted to Grades K-3. With so much attention and resources given to these grade levels under Reading First, there are fewer studies that examine literacy coaches working with fourth and fifth grades, or in middle or high school settings.

At the same time, while literacy coaches are hired to connect professional development with classroom practices and student learning, there is no research that addresses actions taken by coaches to purposely navigate the accountability standards created from high-stakes testing. Context is an important and contributing factor to how one teaches. Just as teachers make decisions based on the particular setting in which they work, literacy coaches also enact different practices depending on their settings. The majority of research on literacy coaches has been conducted in K-3 settings with different accountability statuses from grade levels responsible for high-stakes testing (with the exception of third grade). For example, Coburn and Woulfin (2012) studied one school where they were interested in how literacy coaches mediated the relationship between policy and practice. Working with two literacy coaches, administrators, and first- and second-grade teachers, Coburn and Woulfin demonstrated how the literacy coaches played a key role in influencing how teachers responded to Reading First policy, with data collected the year before Reading First was implemented and the first year of its implementation. They argued that it is just as important to examine the political roles of literacy coaches as their educative roles, particularly when considering how they mediate the relationship between policy and practice. As high-stakes testing continues to dominate public educational settings, it is also important to broaden our understanding of what it means to be a literacy coach in these settings where policy is directly tied to high-stakes testing.

In addition to national policy, other contextual factors that are important to take into consideration include the school and district, which affect literacy coaches (A. T. Smith, 2007). For example, in a study of middle and high school literacy coaches in Wyoming, Rush (2013) found that contextual factors made a difference in what literacy coaches were able to do. Contextual factors included gaining teachers’ permission to work with them (enrollment) and the degree to which the literacy coaches’ work was embedded in the professional development structures of their schools and districts. These contextual factors often determined how much coaching they were able to provide and how much time they were able to spend on literacy-related issues. Administrative support as well as literacy coaches’ involvement in school leadership and alignment between the school’s professional development framework and their practices was important.

This study begins to fill two gaps in the literature. First, it focuses on the work of a literacy coach assigned to work with Grades 3 to 5, the grade levels required to take high-stakes tests in elementary schools. Second, this study investigates the literacy coach’s actions within the context of the pressure to prepare students for high-stakes literacy tests. The data show how the literacy coach enacted her pedagogical beliefs by supporting teachers in crafting teaching practices that balanced test preparation with practices she found to be defensible. Being in a position of working with teachers and administrators, the actions taken up by the literacy coach demonstrate how literacy coaching is a political act situated in a political context shaped by high-stakes testing.

Research Design

This study was part of a larger ethnographic study in which I explored literacy instruction at all grade levels (pre-K to fifth grade) in relation to school reform. Here I report only on the literacy coach’s work with supporting third to fifth grades with reading because the focus of this article is on the role the literacy coach played in supporting teachers with high-stakes reading testing, and third to fifth grades were the only grades that took the reading tests. Fourth-grade students also took the state writing test, but because this was the only grade level that took the writing test, writing instruction was not as emphasized in the school as reading instruction. While Gina did support the teachers with writing, most of her attention was on providing reading support and my analysis follows how she did this.

I drew from an ethnographic design (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Glesne, 2006) to examine the everyday tasks related to teaching, learning, and the culture of the school. This approach allowed me to study Gina’s experiences as well as her relationships with other teachers and the reading curriculum. I paid close attention to the range of interactions Gina had with teachers, the kinds of reading activities students were asked to do, the materials used, and the discourses about reading.

Context

The school, Brazos Elementary, was a Title I school in a metropolitan city in Texas with student enrollment approaching 1,000. Most of the students were Latinos (97%) whose parents indicated that Spanish was spoken at home. With such a large student body, grade levels included between six and seven teachers, most of whom had bilingual Spanish/English or English as a Second Language certification. Roughly half of all grade levels included bilingual classrooms. The use of English or Spanish correlated with the language in which students were learning to read and write. With little exception, the majority of instruction in third- to fifth-grade classrooms occurred in English. This was reflective of the district’s encouragement to transition students into English as soon as possible for testing purposes.

In Texas, the accountability test used at the time for grade-level promotions was the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). This was administered to students in third grade through 11th grade. All grade levels took the reading and math tests, whereas writing, social studies, and science were only tested at certain grade levels. The state used school test scores to classify schools into one of four categories: exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, or academically unacceptable (Texas Education Agency, 2007-2008). Historically, Brazos Elementary was classified as “academically acceptable,” although still considered “low performing.” At the end of Gina’s second year as a literacy coach at Brazos Elementary, the test scores improved significantly enough that the school was reclassified by the state as “recognized.” Although I did not specifically collect data on test scores, this information was often provided during interviews and meetings.

Even with an increase in test scores, the culture of the school was largely shaped by the political climate of testing where all teachers understood the importance of test scores. The result was that success and student achievement were often discussed in relation to test scores as evidenced by interviews and observations. Despite the heavy emphasis on test scores by the state and district, the trusting relationship between the Gina and the principal, Lucia, contributed to the culture of the school where teachers generally felt supported and able to pursue the kinds of practices for which Gina advocated. The increase in test scores along with the relationship Gina had with Lucia are two important factors to highlight, as they may have contributed to Gina’s ability to do the kind of work she was doing at the time. Like Gina, Lucia was in her third year at Brazos Elementary. Prior to accepting her first position as a principal, Lucia worked at one other school in the district as an assistant principal, an instructional reading coach, and a classroom teacher over a 14-year span. Lucia described her role as the principal as being more of a facilitator rather than a director who sought advice from the coaches (Interview, May 11, 2012).

Gina felt supported as well as appreciated and trusted by Lucia (Field Notes, Instructional Meeting, April 15, 2011). In describing her relationship with Lucia, Gina said, “She trusts that I can make decisions about those kinds of things that will serve kids well” (Interview, September 24, 2010). This point of view was reciprocated when Lucia described Gina as “really strong and has a passion for reading, for literacy and just at what she does, and I think doing what’s best for kids” (Interview, September 24, 2010). The trusting relationship they had helped Gina feel she could do her job as she saw fit and with the autonomy to define her role as a literacy coach and to make decisions.

Participants

Sources of Data

I observed meetings and classrooms across the 2010-2011 school year. These observations yielded the following data: expanded field notes, transcribed video/audio recordings, field notes from informal conversations with staff members, observational notes of student teachers, photographs of classrooms and materials, and documents such as photocopies of lesson plans and handouts. The meetings I observed were with Gina meeting one-on-one with individual teachers, with an entire grade level, and with administrative personnel and other curriculum coaches. In terms of observing classroom interactions, I observed both in classrooms where Gina was either teaching or observing, and in classrooms where Gina was not present. The amount of time I observed in classrooms and meetings averaged from 45 min to 2 hr, and anywhere from 1 to 5 days per week across the school year. In total, I conducted 110 classroom observations and 35 observations of meetings.

Another source of data included semiformal interviews (Spradley, 1979; Weiss, 1994) that lasted approximately 1 hr. I interviewed the literacy coach 4 times during the school year. For other participants, my goal was to interview them twice, once at the beginning of the year and once at the end of the year. I managed to do this for 13 participants, and for seven, I was only able to interview once due to scheduling. Rather than use a question–answer structure that positioned the participant as a passive provider of answers, I tried to create a conversation. I used an interview protocol as a guide and reference rather than as a checklist that needed to be completed (see the appendix for examples of the questions asked during interviews). The overall goal of these semiformal interviews was to seek understanding from each participant’s point of view and to contribute to the data I collected from observations. The questions I asked teachers related to their teaching of literacy, the decisions they made, the sources of influence on their teaching, and their background such as number of years of teaching and the college they attended. Questions that specifically addressed the research questions included the following: “What influences the way you teach and the things you teach?” and “Tell me about how your practice has changed from last year to this year? Sources of influence?” These questions were included to find out whether teachers attributed the literacy coach to their teaching and in what ways.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred in two main phases. The first phase began with reading field notes and interview transcripts line by line on a weekly basis. During this iterative process, I read each data source at least 3 times to develop categories and theoretical hypotheses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam, 2002). Table 1 provides an example of the development of categories along with initial codes. I conducted the initial open coding by writing directly in the margins of printed transcripts and field notes. Drawing on the theoretical framework, I developed these codes while trying to understand literacy in terms of the practices, values, beliefs, and actions that were revealed (Street, 1995). The codes were descriptive of the general topic (e.g., teacher asks literacy coach to observe her teaching; literacy coach wants teachers to feel supported) and often included exact wording from the data (e.g., teacher views literacy coach as “an advocate for literacy”).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Example of the Development of Codes and Categories From Data.

Example of coded data	Initial code	Initial category	Revised category
“I feel like in the past they saw me as maybe having the right answers and being able to do it right. And they wanted to watch me do it right or tell them how to do it right. And I feel like this year that has changed a lot and it’s more a sense of sharing responsibility and not like, ‘tell me what to do, or tell me how to do it.’” (Gina, Interview, February 21, 2010)	Literacy coach perceives that teachers are less dependent on her for the right answers	Literacy coach emphasizes learning together rather than from her	Literacy Coach: Beliefs and Approach
“It started with the Tomás Rivera Award and all of us wanting to do that. And I don’t know that everybody else on my team was willing to put in the effort when they could just use the basal and other resources. It was kind of above and beyond because we wanted to do this with our kids instead of what everybody else is doing, and so Gina would be willing to meet with us to do it.” (Evelyn, Interview, April 6, 2010)	Teacher recognizes that literacy coach supports teachers with extra projects	Ways in which literacy coach provides support for teachers	Literacy Coach: Role
“I love when Gina comes in and models a class for me because I get to step back and I get to see my kids interact with another adult. I get to hear things that I never probably would have heard because I’m so busy sometimes trying to keep the class in order while somebody is talking.” (Celestina, Interview, April 5, 2010)	Teacher loves when literacy coach models for her in her classroom	How teachers respond to literacy coach	Literacy Coach: Teachers’ Response

I drew on data from pre-K to fifth grade to understand how reading and writing were taught and talked about in the school as a whole. This yielded more than 200 codes, which I input into ATLAS.ti, a computer software program designed for conducting qualitative research. The software allowed me to collapse the initial codes into 73 categories based on similarity and overlap (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, what was previously coded weekly assessment, benchmark test, and grade-level common assessment were combined under the category of Assessment. Further analysis of these categories allowed me to condense them into 43 meaningful units with descriptive subcategories. To illustrate, the larger category of Literacy Teaching resulted in subcategories such as Literacy Teaching: Materials; Literacy Teaching: Text Choice; and Literacy Teaching: Vocabulary. This led to the identification of eight final categories linked by the common theme of how reform efforts played out in the school. Literacy Coach was one of these categories that emerged as most salient in the data, and led to the second phase of analysis, which is the focus of this article.

During the second phase of analysis, I limited my data set to the sources that directly included the literacy coach, third- to fifth-grade teachers, and other staff members who were involved in making decisions related to high-stakes testing. I reread the data to focus on characterizing and describing the literacy coach’s actions. This phase of analysis was informed by the literature on literacy coaches and their roles, in which I grounded my understanding of what literacy coaches do, while being open to other ways of understanding literacy coaching based on Gina’s practices. This phase of analysis was also informed by what I knew about Gina, such as my assumption that she was an excellent teacher and coach based on having worked with her, as well as what I knew about the larger context—the school, the district, and state mandates—based on my experiences as a classroom teacher.

This process involved creating new codes (e.g., literacy coach encourages teachers to use reading workshop; literacy coach makes sure teachers are familiar with wording on tests) and categories (e.g., structuring reading time; knowing the test) that supported and characterized what the literacy coach did in relation to high-stakes testing. Throughout this phase, I was also able to use negative case analysis (Seale, 2000) to show examples of confounding evidence, such as when Gina took a hands-off approach with some teachers whom she did not build a rapport with and therefore did not directly support.

I wrote analytic memos (Yin, 1984) to develop an understanding of the data in relation to the research questions, the literature on high-stakes testing and literacy coaching, and theoretical frameworks on literacy and teaching as situated practice. In particular, I paid attention to what Gina did and the decisions she made in relation to the context. By situating her work as a literacy coach within social, cultural, historical, and political contexts, I was able to recognize how her work was mediated within a larger system.

Supporting Readers as Individuals

A skills-based approach to teaching reading reflects a belief that reading can be divided into a series of subskills (e.g., main idea, sequencing events) that can be taught and mastered to improve reading (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991). This approach presents a narrow definition of literacy that is reduced to discrete skills in isolation without clear connections to meaningful uses of literacy (Apple, 2002; D. Brandt & Clinton, 2002) and does not recognize what the reader brings to a text or the transaction that occurs between a reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1994).

The district emphasized skills-based instruction to promote student success on the high-stakes reading test. For example, the district created the reading curriculum based on skills that corresponded with the state objectives for student learning. These were organized for teachers in the curriculum road maps, which were pacing guides that designated the order in which skills should be taught and the amount of time spent on each skill, typically organized into 1- or 2-week units, regardless of students’ needs.

Gina’s response to the skills-based curriculum was to encourage teachers to use reading workshop as a way of structuring their reading block so they could not only address the district’s curriculum but also address individual needs. Reading workshop supports students’ reading growth through the use of mini-lessons to teach skills, habits, and strategies; the use of conferences to further assess and teach according to individual needs; preserved time for independent reading; and by promoting student choice of reading material (Atwell, 1987, 2007; Calkins, 2001; Serafini, 2001). Workshop approaches allow teachers to structure their teaching in ways that acknowledge literacy learning as an individual process. In an era of testing and accountability, authentic workshop approaches to teaching may not always be a direct counterpart to skills-based teaching, although many researchers have shown how teachers hold to workshop values and continue to develop these pedagogies despite accountability mandates (e.g., Higgins, Miller, & Wegmann, 2006; Santman, 2002; Seely Flint & Laman, 2012; Wolf & Wolf, 2002). Gina’s approach relates to what researchers have shown where workshop teaching does not necessarily replace the dominant curriculum, but instead offers a way to negotiate expectations set forth by the school, the district, or curricular mandates.

The result was that Gina was able to offset the skills-based instruction by ensuring students spent time daily on independent reading and that teachers closely watched individual readers rather than have instruction only driven by the skill of the week. For most teachers, using reading workshop was new. Before Gina came to Brazos Elementary, most teachers either did not incorporate independent reading time into their daily schedule, or the time was primarily short in duration and did not necessarily inform instruction (Gina, Interview, September 24, 2010). Creating time for predictable, daily independent reading is an important tenet of reading workshop, and provides students with the opportunity to apply strategies and respond to texts as well as build their fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and background knowledge (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Calkins, 2001; Routman, 2002). Conferring allows teachers to support readers with intentions that reach beyond a predetermined set of skills, and teachers can assess individual needs, differentiate instruction, and form relationships (Atwell, 1987, 2007).

Prior to using reading workshop, most teachers relied on whole class lessons to teach reading (Gina, Interview, September 24, 2010). Including reading workshop in the daily schedule thus required restructuring and support from Gina to initiate, manage, and use the time effectively. Gina helped teachers by providing them with information about reading workshop and by modeling in their classrooms how to conduct mini-lessons and talk to students about their reading. Gina also helped teachers by ensuring they had classroom libraries stocked with a wide variety of texts organized for students to readily choose from.

In the following example, I show how Gina supported Celestina, a third-grade bilingual teacher, with reading workshop by modeling in her classroom. Celestina had been struggling with getting her reading workshop started at the beginning of the year and she appealed to Gina for help by saying that “what was happening out there [during reading workshop] wasn’t okay. I felt like the independent reading time was a waste of time” (Celestina, Interview, October 5, 2010). To begin supporting Celestina, Gina came and observed during reading workshop. The following day she came back to conduct a mini-lesson with the students about procedures for reading workshop that included a conversation about having special places to sit and read. Gina began the conversation by asking students to reflect on how reading workshop had been going. Students described the experience as “bad because students were talking” (Field Notes, August 31, 2010). Gina then asked the students to think with her about what they could do differently to ensure reading was happening. After brainstorming ideas that promoted students’ responsibility for their reading, Gina provided some procedural instructions about how students should get their books.

As illustrated by this example, Gina supported Celestina’s implementation of reading workshop in two ways. First, she modeled for Celestina how to address challenges, and second, she used the format of a mini-lesson to involve students in problem solving. This demonstrates how Gina worked with teachers by showing them rather than telling what to do. She modeled constructivist practices that privileged a cooperative approach to teaching and learning. Also, she promoted reading workshop as a way of teaching students that is based on what students have to contribute and recognizes that they can problem-solve when difficulties arise. This particular mini-lesson was focused on a classroom management issue that stemmed from behaviors associated with independent reading. Reading workshop supports readers’ interactions with texts and their use of strategies, thus developing reading habits that are more authentic than solely focusing on isolated reading skills (Calkins, 2001).

After Gina released students to read independently, she continued to support Celestina by modeling reading conferences with individual students. The following is an example from field notes of Gina conferring with Jennifer about her reading (Field Notes, August 31, 2010). The excerpt is divided into four sections with interpretation following each section.

Gina sits next to Jennifer and listens as she reads a book about the character Froggy (a series of picture books written by Jonathan London). Gina says, “You are doing a good job. Tell me a little about the story. What did I miss?” Jennifer talks about Froggy going to school and continues retelling the story.

By beginning the conference with listening to Jennifer read, Gina was able to assess Jennifer’s oral reading. She then followed by asking Jennifer to tell her about the book, which allowed Gina to become familiar with the reading material and assess Jennifer’s comprehension. This is an example of how reading workshop gives students choice over their reading material and how the format of the reading conference allows for dialogue instead of asking students a list of comprehension questions focused on skills. This is also an example of how promoting student choice can position the student as expert because she may be more familiar with the text than the teacher.

Gina responds by saying, “You’re making a prediction about what’s going to happen. What made you think that?” After Jennifer responds, Gina says, “You used that illustration as a clue.” Gina asks Jennifer, “Have you ever been to a sleep over where people tell scary stories? How do you think Froggy is going to feel?” Jennifer says, “Scared.” Gina, “Yeah, I would agree with that.”

Gina called attention to a strategy Jennifer was using when she said, “You’re making a prediction about what’s going to happen.” To follow up, Gina then asked Jennifer to explain how she arrived at this prediction. By saying this, Gina noticed and named what Jennifer was already doing by calling attention to one of her strengths as a reader. This shows how reading workshop can help teachers build on students’ strengths, rather than predetermined skills all students should be taught.

Gina asks, “Is this a just right book for you?” Jennifer nods her head yes and Gina says, “Yeah, I would agree with that.”

This reflects an earlier conversation Celestina had with the students about encouraging them to choose books that are not too difficult to read independently. One component of reading workshop consists of allowing students to choose what they want to read rather than be assigned what to read (Atwell, 1987). To support teachers with allowing students to choose their own texts, Gina encouraged them to conduct mini-lessons with students about how to choose a “just right book.” Teacher-created posters about choosing books were displayed in all of the classrooms where Gina worked with teachers on reading workshop. Gina reinforced students’ responsibility over choosing appropriate texts when she asked Jennifer whether this book was a “just right book” for her.

Gina then points to a page in the book and rereads the phrase, “Skin crawl.” She explains to Jennifer that this is a phrase the author used “to say that Froggy is scared and freaked out.” Gina thanks Jennifer for talking with her and writes some notes in her notebook before moving to sit with another student.

Gina recognized that Jennifer, who was an English language learner, might not understand the phrase “skin crawl.” To support her comprehension and language development, Gina explained the meaning before bringing the conference to an end. This was also a way for Gina to model for Celestina, and then later talk about how reading conferences can consist of a teaching point that is based on what the teacher directly observes (Calkins, 2001), rather than a prescribed set of skills or objectives designated ahead of time.

The one-on-one conferences that are a part of the reading workshop structure allowed Gina to carefully observe Jennifer and individualize her instruction. The reading conference also allows for students to engage in meaningful and authentic talk about what they are reading, rather than answering questions aimed at covering a required skill or objective. Gina’s teaching was not only individualized but was also grounded in Jennifer’s own strengths as a reader. This approach to assessing and teaching reading is responsive to students in ways that a strictly skills-based approach to teaching where everyone receives the same instruction is not.

In addition, Gina was able to model for Celestina the kinds of talk and observations that teachers engage in during reading conferences. This modeling helped emphasize the teachers’ role during reading workshop as providing support and individualized instruction rather than serving as a monitor to ensure students are reading. For Celestina, Gina’s modeling also provided a way to observe her own students from a different perspective. She described this experience by saying,

I love when Gina comes in and models a class for me because I get to step back and I get to see my kids interact with another adult. I get to hear things that I never probably would have heard because I’m so busy sometimes trying to keep the class in order while somebody is talking. (Interview, April 5, 2010)

While modeling benefited teachers by showing them what to do and say, it also provided Celestina the opportunity to understand her students in a way she might not have otherwise. Having another teacher in the classroom allowed Celestina to focus on the students rather than on teaching and classroom management. The continued emphasis on students was another way that reading workshop benefited teachers and students. Had Gina not emphasized and supported teachers in the use of reading workshop, teachers may have continued to focus on reading rather than readers—with priority given to skills taught in a sequential predetermined fashion rather than in response to what students needed as individuals.

Fostering Supportive Relationships

At the district level, professional development consisted of workshops on how to teach certain reading skills or how to teach test-taking strategies, reflective of the district’s approach to teaching reading as an accumulation of skills. In these workshops, emphasis was placed on giving information to teachers with the intent that they were going to be “trained,” rather than identify or build on the expertise of the group. These workshops were also short in duration, lasting only a few hours. There was no follow-up, and they were not centered on the needs of the teachers (Gina, Interview, May 19, 2010). Researchers have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of this approach to professional development where information is truncated and focused on prescribed ideas with little to no attention given to agency or how knowledge is shaped by personal, interpersonal, contextual, and situational factors that shift over time (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Olson & Craig, 2001).

Just as Gina supplemented the reading curriculum, she also supplemented the professional development available to teachers. She still conducted the traditional forms of professional development that the district expected her to do (i.e., train teachers how to use the testing binders provided by the district with information about how to teach test-taking strategies), but for her, professional development meant more than just focusing on skills or test preparation—It meant building teachers’ knowledge of teaching reading and acknowledging that learning occurs through social engagement. In turn, Gina facilitated teacher learning through teacher-centered inquiry groups and encouraged teachers’ involvement with local organizations.

Engaging Students in Reading Authentic Literature

Passing the high-stakes tests was clearly a focus of the school district, as evidenced by expectations to work on test preparation. These expectations were communicated with teachers through the workshops mentioned earlier in which teachers were trained how to teach test-taking strategies. The district provided support by purchasing materials that resembled the state tests—worksheets that contained reading passages and multiple-choice questions. In addition to sending district representatives to the school to meet with teachers as a way of monitoring them and ensuring they were spending time on test preparation and tested objectives, administrators and curricular coaches such as literacy coaches were also expected to enforce test preparation (Gina, Interview, September 24, 2010).

The depth to which teachers were expected to focus on test preparation often results in a narrowing of the curriculum with little or no attention given to untested objectives or subjects (Jacob, 2005). For Gina, it was important to avert these negative effects as much as possible. She supported teachers in developing their own plan to prepare students for testing, with an emphasis on reading “authentic literature” rather than passages written for the purpose of providing test practice. Authentic literature was a term Gina used to refer to trade books. There were three main strategies that Gina used to ensure teachers were working directly on test preparation in ways that did not compromise her beliefs about quality literacy teaching. First, Gina made sure teachers were familiar with the language used on the test so they could infuse the same discourses in their teaching. Second, Gina showed teachers how to use authentic literature along with the testing language to teach tested objectives. Last, Gina worked with teachers to create their own test-like assessments based on the texts they were reading.