GeorGia Journal of readinG 6 Volume 38, number 1 2015 abstract This article describes a qualitative study conducted to explore the daily roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches and to compare them with the International Reading Association’s recommended standards literacy coaches (IRA, 2006). Four middle school literacy coaches, all employed at different middle schools within the same district in the southeastern united States participated in this study. findings reveal some consistencies in roles such as building rapport and evaluation of literacy needs. adolescent literacy is a cornerstone of students’ academic success (Wise, 2009). Students typically acquire basic skills that serve as the foundation for reading and writing in the elementary school years. in the middle grades however, students must build on those foundational skills to develop sophistication in their application of literacy strategies in order to comprehend a variety of texts across content areas. Concerns about adolescent literacy have been voiced consistently over the past two decades. Since 1992, periodic assessments of reading conducted by the national Center for education Statistics (nCeS) show that the majority of u.S. students in grades 4 and 8 have scored at only a “basic” level of literacy. Similarly, researchers have found that one out of every four adolescents could not read well enough to identify the main idea in a passage or to comprehend informational text (allington, 1994; Kamil, 2003). Several initiatives have been undertaken in order to address adolescent literacy concerns. in 2005, for example, the federal initiative Striving Readers provided funding to school districts to raise reading achievement levels of secondary students by improving the quality of literacy instruction across the curriculum. Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy (biancarosa & Snow, 2006) identified fifteen critical elements of effective adolescent literacy and literacy programs, including professional development for teachers that is long term and ongoing; interdisciplinary teacher teams that meet regularly to discuss student needs and to align instruction with those needs; and leadership from both administrators and faculty who have comprehensive knowledge of literacy teaching and learning. including instructional coaches as part of the middle school literacy team, is one way in which schools seek to provide ongoing professional development and literacy leadership. Current research on literacy coaching supports the idea that, through job-embedded professional development, literacy coaches can contribute to improvements in the quality of teacher instruction and student literacy learning (bean & eisenberg, 2009; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Professional organizations, such as the international reading association, have compiled standards for reading professionals, with a focus on performance, suggested knowledge, and skills that these professional should possess. While some research has examined the role of literacy coaches at the elementary school level, little is known about the work of literacy coaches in middle school (mraz, algozzine, & Watson, 2008; Walpole & mcKenna, 2004). This study sought to address that need by examining the roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches and comparing those roles and responsibilities with the International Reading Association’s recommended standards for literacy coaches (IRA, 2006). Middle School Literacy Coaches: Perceptions of Roles and Responsibilities by KAtie stover, ph.D. AnD MAryAnn MrAz, ph.D. GeorGia Journal of readinG 7 Volume 38, number 1 2015 The inclusion of literacy specialists to provide guidance and support has been widely accepted for many years. The roles these educators fulfill, however, have changed in recent years (mraz, algozzine, & Kissel, 2009; Vacca, Vacca, & mraz, 2011). Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the primary responsibility of reading specialists was to work with struggling readers in small groups or in pull-out programs, where students received specialized literacy instruction outside of their regular classrooms. often, there was little collaboration between the classroom teacher and the reading specialist about the type of instruction a student received in the pull-out setting (dole, 2004). Concerns about the effectiveness of these programs led to a shift toward in-class collaborative instruction between reading specialists and classroom teachers, the specialist’s role was expanded from working solely with students to shared leadership and coaching responsibilities to improve the quality of classroom instruction (bean, 2004; bean, Cassidy, Grumet, Shelton, & Wallis, 2002). Policy initiatives such as the no Child left behind act (u.S. department of education, 2001), race to the Top (u.S. department of education, 2010), and the Common Core State Standards (2010) have prompted educators and researchers to examine both the preparation and continuing education of literacy teachers (bean, 2004). Shifting the role of a reading specialist from teaching students to coaching teachers has been one initiative designed to improve reading instruction by providing ongoing, consistent, and relevant professional development to teachers (Vacca, Vacca, & mraz, 2011). There is a growing recognition that literacy coaches offer guidance and support to help teachers refine their instructional practices. Still, variation in the roles these literacy professionals fulfill remains vague. Some focus specifically on supporting classroom teachers in their daily implementation of the school’s literacy program (Guth & Pettengill, 2005; IRA, 2006). Others support teachers by working across subject areas or by providing general and specific professional development session (dole, 2004). Yet others report that administrative tasks and paperwork consume much of their time (Dole & Donaldson, 2006). The occupational titles of those who do the work of literacy coaches are often as varied as the roles they fulfill. an international reading association survey found that over 89% are referred to as a “literacy coach” or a “reading coach” (IRA, 2006). Additional commonly used titles for professionals engaged in literacy coaching include specialist, facilitator, curriculum, instructional, reading specialist, literacy facilitator, or academic specialist. other titles reference a place, such as a school building in which a literacy work works (e.g. middle school literacy specialist). The roles of middle school literacy coaches share some commonalities with elementary and secondary coaches. Walpole and mcKenna (2004) explain that coaching models should adapt to the needs of the setting. all coaches regardless of level act as instructional leaders, provide professional development and resources to teachers, collaborate with colleagues, and use assessment to drive instruction. However, the roles of the middle school literacy coach are unique in that specific knowledge of how to assist middle school teachers in building a better understanding of content area reading, using textbooks effectively, and applying literacy strategies across subject areas are essential (ira, 2000). The roles of the middle school literacy coach are multifaceted and complex. Sturtevant (2003) and Toll (2005) explain that literacy coaches in middle and high schools are seen as teacher leaders, and may be expected to do any combination of the following: mentor teachers, observe classes, work with teacher teams, advise administrators on school wide literacy issues administer and analyze literacy assessments, and work with parents or community groups. While the potential responsibilities for middle school literacy coaches can be overwhelming, the international Reading Association (2006) has established four broad standards for the role of the literacy coach: (1). Skillful collaborators: collaborate with the school literacy team; promote positive relationships among school staff; address family literacy needs; (2). Skillful job-embedded coaches: provide professional development for teachers; demonstrate lessons; engage in classroom coaching for individual teachers; support content area reading, differentiated instruction, and materials acquisition; (3). Skillful evaluators of literacy needs: analyze data and monitor student progress; conduct assessments for individual students or groups of students; (4.) Skillful instructional strategists: know how reading and writing process relate within various content area disciplines. The purpose of this study was an in-depth investigation of the roles and responsibilities of four middle school literacy coaches by addressing the following questions: 1). How do middle school literacy coaches define their roles and responsibilities? 2). How do the daily roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches compare to the recommended standards defined by ira for that role? Statement of the Purpose although literacy coaches have been studied at the elementary level (Walpole & mcKenna, 2004), little research has been conducted related to the role of GeorGia Journal of readinG 8 Volume 38, number 1 2015 literacy coaches at the middle school level. Professional organizations have provided guidelines for the work of middle school literacy coaches, however little is known about if and how these guidelines are put into practice. This study was conducted to examine the roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches and to compare those roles with the international reading Association’s recommended standards for literacy coaches (IRA, 2006). The author was interested in middle school literacy coaches’ perspectives on the allocation of time, the definition of their roles and responsibilities, and how their daily roles and responsibilities compare with the recommended ira standards for the role of the literacy coach at the middle school level. The following questions were examined from the perspectives of four middle school literacy coaches: How do middle school literacy coaches define their roles and responsibilities and how do the daily roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches compare to the recommended ira standards? Methodology Participants and Context This study was conducted in a school district within the southeastern united States. The district served approximately 20,000 students representing a blend of urban, suburban, and rural regions. four middle school literacy coaches participated in this study. each participant was employed at a different middle school within the same district. all coaches had previously worked as middle school teachers teaching language arts, math, or science. Their transition to the role of the literacy coach had occurred within the previous one or two years, therefore, these participants were relatively new to the literacy coaching position. Data Collection and Analysis To better understand the roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches, data was collected from multiple sources including survey data, semi- structured interviews, and documents, such as daily logs and schedules. The interviews sought to ascertain participants’ perspectives on their preparation for their position, their current roles and responsibilities, and the rewards and challenges of their work (see appendix a). a constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967) was used to analyze the qualitative data collected in the study. The transcripts were read multiple times to initiate the data analysis process. Codes were assigned based on the patterns in the participants’ data. These codes were categorized into themes and labeled. To further investigate the roles and responsibilities of each participant, samples of weekly schedules and daily logs were requested from each participant. The use of triangulation of multiple data sources allowed the researchers to make comparisons among the findings. additionally, each participant completed a survey (see Appendix B) that listed specific behaviors within each of the four standards for literacy coaches recommended by the international reading association. following a model similar to Cassidy and Cassidy’s “What’s Hot, What’s Not” survey (2008), participants were asked to rate whether each behavior was part of her current coaching role or not part of her current role. each participant was also asked to indicate whether she believed that each behavior should be part of the coaching role or should not be part of the coaching role. The validity of the survey was grounded in the importance placed on each item by the international Reading Association’s Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches (2006). findings Roles and Responsibilities In response to the first research question, how do middle school literacy coaches define their roles and responsibilities, all four coaches reported that they fulfilled a variety of responsibilities influenced by the needs of teachers, the decisions of administration, and their own professional judgment. Three out of the four coaches reported consistencies in their daily roles and responsibilities in terms of spending time working with teachers in classrooms and providing professional development. as one coach stated in her interview, “i am a teacher, not an administrator.” Three coaches saw themselves as supportive figures that collaborate with teachers in a non-evaluative manner. They viewed themselves as equals, learned from the teachers, and shared their own expertise. Through building rapport with teachers, the three coaches purported that they were able to create trusting relationships and increase teacher buy-in and participation. These three literacy coaches described their role as comprised of tasks such as helping teachers to plan effective lessons, sharing ideas and resources, and providing feedback to help teachers reflect and continue to grow professionally. one referred to her job as “hopping around” from class-to-class and subject-to-subject in order to model strategies and coach individual teachers. The work coaches did with teachers varied based on the needs of each individual teacher. for example, one coach stated that for a teacher who needs more support, she gradually released the modeling process throughout an entire day with that teacher. During first period, the coach taught the lesson while the classroom teacher observed. Following reflection and debriefing, the coach and the teacher co-taught the second period GeorGia Journal of readinG 9 Volume 38, number 1 2015 class in order to give the teacher more support before implementing the technique on her own. When the teacher was comfortable with the strategy, she then taught the lesson to another class while the literacy coach observed and provided feedback. Three coaches reported that it was often necessary to conference with teachers in order to identify the teacher’s needs and desired areas for professional development. according to the coaches, these conversations were crucial in helping the literacy coach design effective and appropriate support. Coaches worked across subject areas with all classes to model strategies and provide a variety of literacy support. for example, the biology teacher was dissecting frogs and invited the literacy coach into her class to pre- teach the necessary vocabulary for this unit of study. This same literacy coach did a read aloud about Pythagorean Theorem to an algebra class to tap their prior knowledge of the subject and model fluent reading. later in the week, the literacy coach came back to the same math class to show the students how to read the word problem to determine and highlight key words while the teacher explained the steps of problem solving and the mathematical equations to solve the problems. all three literacy coaches reported that acquiring and sharing resource materials with teachers was on ongoing part of their role as a coach. for instance, one literacy coach noted that if students struggled with the concept of figurative language, she provided the teacher with helpful resources to teach and reinforce this concept. While three out of the four literacy coaches reported similar findings about the daily work they do at their schools, one coach shared somewhat different roles and responsibilities. instead of working in classrooms with teachers, this coach spent the majority of her time analyzing standardized test data and scheduling remediation and enrichment groups. She also did more operational tasks such as testing, and planning family movie nights and accelerated reader parties. She explained that there was a need for someone to analyze the data for the teachers because they simply did not have time to do so. due to the extended amount of time spent on data analysis, this literacy coach only taught lessons sporadically. as she stated in the interview, “I don’t have a lot of in-class time because teachers don’t ask.” Furthermore, she had no experience with planning and facilitating professional development for teachers. This literacy coach explained that she did not feel needed and, therefore, did not know what to do or how to allocate her time if the teachers did not explicitly ask for assistance. time allocation data collected from the interviews provided some insight about the allocation of time for the middle school literacy coaches. Three of the literacy coaches reported spending approximately 75% of their time working in the classrooms with teachers, providing demonstration lessons, coaching, and debriefing. One coach spent little time working directly with teachers and spent more time behind the scenes organizing various programs and analyzing assessment data. The researcher planned to collect data in the form of a written daily log over the period of one month depicting how the literacy coaches’ time was allocated. However, only one of the literacy coaches provided this data and reported the allocation of her time as follows: n 27 hours conducting, facilitating, or analyzing assessments n 23 hours planning professional development n 22 hours in classrooms n 21 ¼ hours in team meetings or discussions with teachers n 15 ½ hours writing lesson plans n 11 ½ hours conducting professional development n 6 ½ hours in meetings such as staff meetings or literacy team meetings n 4 ½ hours organizing and distributing materials to teachers n 1 hour participating in professional development Challenges and rewards in addition to providing information about roles, responsibilities, and time allocation, analysis of the interview data revealed the challenges and rewards that literacy coaches reported experiencing as part of their work. all four coaches interviewed reported concern about unclear role expectations, particularly in their first year. One coach, in her second year of coaching at the time of this study, reported that she remained uncertain about how she was expected to spend her time. While the literacy coaches faced many challenges, they also reported experiencing rewards in their work. one coach found the ability to work with all students and to fulfill a variety of roles to be refreshing. She shared that she felt rejuvenated with her new position after 21 years of teaching and “enjoys learning from and helping teachers.” additionally, three coaches expressed their belief that the opportunity to impact instruction and student achievement has the potential to create a broader impact across the school, not just within a single classroom. one coach stated that the eighth grade teachers closed the gap on the scores of their formative assessment and credited this success to the strategies the coach shared with them. another coach reported, “i am passionate about the need to teach content area literacy strategies… if i was behind the door of my own language arts classroom, i would not be able to do that.” GeorGia Journal of readinG 10 Volume 38, number 1 2015 alignment of roles with the Standards The second research question addressed how the daily roles and responsibilities of middle school literacy coaches compared with the recommended ira standards. figure 1 summarizes the coaches responses to the survey that asked what standards were part of their current coaching role and what standards they believed should be part of their coaching role. all four coaches noted that all aspects of Standard 1: Skillful Collaborator and Standard 2: Skill Job- embedded Coaches were part of their role as a literacy coach and should be part of their role. They also reported that Standard 3: examining Student Work to analyze Trends and results, and Conducting assessment were part of their current role and should be part of their role. However, the coaches’ responses were not consistent with one aspect of Standard 3. Part of this standard includes interpretation of assessment to help faculty to understand different assessment tools and how to use them diagnostically to guide instruction and enhance teacher effectiveness. While all four literacy coaches believed this should be part of their jobs, only two coaches reported this as something they do on a regular basis. Standard 4: Skillful instructional Strategists is broken into two subsections. all four coaches reported that they have appropriate content area knowledge of how reading and writing relate to the content area and also felt that this was something that should be part of their role as literacy coach. However, there were inconsistencies about the other aspect of this standard. in terms of providing instruction to students, whether in a small group or individual setting, two coaches reported this was part of their job and should be, while the other two coaches reported that this was not part of their current role and should not be. discussion Previous research has found little consistency in the roles and responsibilities of literacy coaches (ira, 2004). in 2000, the international reading association acknowledged that literacy coaches assume multiple roles depending on the needs of students and teachers with whom they work. middle school literacy coaches’ responsibilities are often as varied as the myriad contexts in which they work. in fact, coaches, classroom teachers, and principals tend to have varying perceptions of the roles of responsibilities of the literacy coach (mraz, algozzine, & Watson, 2008; Quatroche, bean, & Hamilton, 2001; Shaw, 2006). This study examined the roles and responsibilities of four middle school literacy coaches. While some uncertainty about the daily work of literacy coaches persisted, consistencies in terms of role expectations emerged, as the roles of three of the four study participants aligned with the recommended standards from the international reading association. Specifically, the importance of establishing rapport with teachers was one theme that consistently emerged from the data. another common characteristic of the roles of the coaches in this study demonstrate that they all are involved with evaluating the literacy needs of students but to different extents. as relatively new literacy coaches, the role itself was unclear. However, professional development offered to all coaches through a statewide initiative proved to be helpful. Three of the coaches discussed how the training was beneficial. They felt that they learned a lot and became stronger coaches as a result. one reported learning “new skills, websites, and information to share with teachers.” The state-level initiative also provided guidelines for the coach’s job description stating that 75% of coaches’ time should be spent working with teachers and students in classrooms. As suggested by one coach, this aligns with the IRA’s standards and prevents the coaches from being used Figure 1 Standard 4: Skillful Part of Current not Part of Should be Shout not be instructional Strategists role Current role Part of Current role Part of Current role Content area Knowledge 4 4 Provide instruction to Students 2 2 2 2 GeorGia Journal of readinG 11 Volume 38, number 1 2015 as substitute teachers for example. all coaches in this study assumed several roles as they worked in a variety of settings that were also identified in the review of the literature. based on survey results, all four literacy coaches reported the following roles as part of their responsibilities: act as an instructional leader in the area of literacy, provide professional development and resources to help teachers develop effective instruction, demonstrate lessons and provide ongoing support, provide one on one coaching by observing teachers in a nonthreatening manner and providing feedback, facilitate assessment processes, and have effective communication skills. as suggested by the state guidelines, the coaches spend much of their time supporting teachers in the classroom. all four coaches describe the importance of modeling strategies and coaching teachers to become proficient on their own. One coach stated that she teaches sporadically and does more behind the scenes work such as data analysis because teachers do not request her assistance. The remaining coaches however describe getting to know teachers through coaching conversations where they ask questions to determine teachers’ needs and adjust their support based on teachers’ comfort levels and needs (Stover, Kissel, Haag, & Shoniker, 2011). These literacy coaches model effective literacy strategies until the teacher is ready to implement them effectively on their own. by spending time in classrooms modeling and providing support, the literacy coaches build trust with the teachers they support. overall, it is evident in the literature that, when literacy coaches have a thorough understanding of the diverse needs of adult learners, successful coaching techniques, knowledge of effective instructional practices, and clear roles and responsibilities, they have a greater potential to promote changes in classroom practice (ira, 2004; Toll, 2005). based on the data analysis in this study, building a rapport with teachers emerged as a central theme in contributing to an effective interaction between coach and teacher. IRA’s Standard 1: Skillful Collaborators includes promoting positive relationships among school staff. all four literacy coaches reported this as part of their role and all believed it should be part of their role. by establishing and emphasizing positive relationships, the coaches were able to position themselves as a supportive figure in the building instead of an evaluative one. for example, one participant explained that, in order to build rapport with the teachers, this literacy coach made a concerted effort to assume a supportive instead of an evaluative role. an example of this can be seen when the coach describes how she spent more time modeling for some teachers before she released them to implement the technique on their own and avoided observation before teachers felt comfortable with her presence in their classrooms. Her principal gave her feedback that indicated that the literacy coach was well received and that she positioned herself effectively as a supportive professional. another coach established rapport by making it clear from the beginning that she was not the “know-all-expert” and that they will both learn together. She validated the positive techniques of teachers, particularly those who she is “not sure if they have bought into [her] yet.” To emphasize the value of collaboration, this coach approached teachers by asking if they were interested in co-teaching and sharing their collective knowledge. One teacher remarked, “I’d love if you could come in once a week because there is always something that i learn from you.” The literacy coach responded, “i always learn from [you] too.” This demonstrated the coach’s effort to build trusting, equal relationships with teachers. When literacy coaches worked together with teachers to build a learning community where teachers and coaches collaborated to establish goals and identify areas of needed professional development, coaches were able to better approximate the standards suggested by the international reading association for their role. When trusting and mutually communicative relationships were established, coaches reported that teachers were less resistant. by positioning themselves as peers with teachers, the literacy coaches were able to show teachers that they were supportive and not evaluative authority figures. both similarities and differences are apparent in the coaches’ roles as skillful evaluators of literacy needs (ira Standard 3). all coaches reported that they were involved with the administration of assessments for students. additionally, they participated in data analysis and progress monitoring of students as part of their roles as a literacy coach. one literacy coach stated, “most of the work i do is with data… our system is 100% driven on data.” another coach mentioned the use of a specific assessment to determine needs of students and differentiated instruction. However, survey results reveal that two out of the four literacy coaches did not engage in IRA’s Standard 3 as part of their roles and responsibilities but believe it should be part of their jobs. Standard three states that coaches’ roles should include leading faculty in understanding, selecting, and using multiple forms of assessment as diagnostic tools. both similarities and differences in the work that each coach does at the school level reveal the need for more consistencies in roles and responsibilities for literacy coaches. The interview data indicated that the role of the GeorGia Journal of readinG 12 Volume 38, number 1 2015 literacy coach is complex. all four literacy coaches reported challenges and rewards of their positions. Their roles were dependent on the needs of individual teachers, directives from administration, mandated state requirements, and day-to-day challenges such as maneuvering between a variety of content area classes. one literacy coach described the challenge of the literacy coaching role as walking a fine line with administration and teachers and requires the need to remain neutral. When literacy coaches have a solid understanding of and respect for the diverse needs of adult learners, they can promote changes in classroom practice (bean, belcastro, Hathaway, risko, rosemary, & roskos, 2008; ira, 2004; Stover, et al., 2011; Toll, 2005). by providing consistent and responsive professional development that is centered on enhancing the quality of instruction, literacy coaches have the potential to play an effective role as a member of the school’s literacy team. Continued research in the area of literacy coaching is critical as we continue to refine the ways in which professional resources can be applied to improve teacher quality and enhance student achievement. references allington, r. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. The Reading Teacher, 48(1), 14-29. bean, r.m. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches. The California Reader, 37(3), 58–63. bean, r.m., Cassidy, J., Grumet, J.e., Shelton, d.S., & Wallis, S.r. (2002). What do reading specialists do? results from a national survey. The Reading Teacher, 55, 736-744. bean, r. m., belcastro, b., Hathaway, J., risko, V., rosemary, C. & roskos, K. (2008). A review of the research on instructional coaching. Paper presented at the american educational research association Conference, new York. bean r. m., & eisenberg, e. (2009). Literacy coaching in middle and high schools. in K. d. Wood & W. e. blanton (eds.) Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research based practice. new York: Guilford. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).Washington, dC: alliance for excellent education. Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, d. (2008, february/march). What’s hot for 2008? Reading Today, 25(4), 1, 10- 11. Common Core State Standards initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & literacy. Washington, dC: national Governors association Center for best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Offices. dole, J.a. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57, 462–471. Dole, J. A., & Donaldson, R. (2006). “What am I supposed to do all day?”: Three big ideas for the reading coach. The Reading Teacher, 59, 486-488. Glasser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, il: aldine. Guth, n. d. & Pettengill, S. S. (2005). Leading a successful reading program: Administrators and reading specialists working together to make it happen. newark, de: international reading association. international reading association (2000). Teaching all children to read: The roles of the reading specialist. newark, de: author. international reading association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States. newark, de: author. International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. newark, de: author. available: www.reading.org/downloads/ resources/597coaching_ standards.pdf Joyce, b. & Showers, b. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. alexandria, Va: association for Supervision and Curriculum development. Kamil, m.l. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, dC: alliance for excellent education. available: http://www.all4ed. org/publications/adolescentsand literacy.pdf mraz, m., algozzine, b., & Kissel, b. (2009). The literacy coach’s companion preK-3. Thousand oaks, Ca:Corwin Press. GeorGia Journal of readinG 13 Volume 38, number 1 2015 mraz, m., algozzine, b., & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 141-157. national Center for education Statistics (nCeS). (2006). Nation’s report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006451 Quatroche, d., bean, r., & Hamilton, r. (2001). The role of the reading specialist: A review of research. The reading Teacher, 55, 282-294. Shaw, M. (2006). A response to the IRA survey of reading/literacy coaches. Reading Today, 23(6), 13. Stover, K., Kissel, b., Haag, K., & Shoniker, r. (2011). Differentiated coaching: Fostering reflection with teachers. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 498-509. Sturdevant, e. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in secondary schools. Washington, dC: alliance for excellent education. Toll, C. (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers. newark, de: international reading association. Vacca, r., Vacca, J., & mraz, m. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (10th ed.). boston: allyn & bacon. Walpole, S. & mcKenna m. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to research based-practice. new York: nY. The Guilford Press. Wise, b. (2009). adolescent literacy: The Cornerstone of Student Success. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 369–375. appendix a Semi-Structured interview Guide middle literacy Coaches: a Study of roles and responsibilities Establishing rapport & Background information 1. Tell me a little about yourself and your teaching experience. 2. What is your current title? Who are your roles and responsibilities? Who determines these? 3. discuss your preparation for your job. What are your areas of certification/licensure? What in-service preparation and/or support have your received? do you feel this is sufficient? Why/why not? 4. How many years have you been in your current position? What did you do before that? Why did you change? roles and responsibilities 5. do your roles and responsibilities differ from what you anticipated that they would be before your took the position? explain. 6. With whom do you work primarily? (e.g. teachers, students, administrators). Why do you think it is this way? 7. When you work with teachers and students, what are some of your main responsibilities/activities? (e.g. direct teaching, co-teaching, planning, mentoring, evaluating, subbing, non-instructional duties) 8. do you work with other specialist such as special education teachers, eSl teachers, speech therapists, etc? Please describe your work with them. 9. What do you normally do in the course of a week? does this differ across the year or stay about the same? Why? rewards/Challenges 10. What do you find rewarding about your job? 11. What dilemmas do you face in your job? How do you solve these? Conclusion 12. What else would you like to share about your position as a literacy professional? appendix B middle School literacy Coach Survey adapted from Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches (IRA, 2006) and What’s Hot, What’s Not (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2009) 1 – Part of my current coaching role and should be 2 – Part of my current coaching role and should not be 3– not part of my current coaching role but should be 4 – not part of my current coaching role and should not be GeorGia Journal of readinG 14 Volume 38, number 1 2015 Score Standard 1: Skillful Collaborators (circle one) Collaborate with School Literacy Team – collaborate with school level literacy team to determine school wide literacy strengths and needs and develop and to implement 1 2 3 4 a literacy program Promote Positive Relationships Among School Staff – establish and emphasize positive relationships in a supportive, rather than an evaluative manner. 1 2 3 4 Foundations of Literacy –share with teachers a body of research about how students become successful readers, writers, and communicators 1 2 3 4 Family Literacy – serve as a resource to families (e.g., provide information to parents about how they can support their child’s reading development at home) 1 2 3 4 Standard 2: Skillful Job-Embedded Coaches Provide Professional Development – share literacy strategies for effective reading and writing instruction 1 2 3 4 Demo Lessons –demonstrate instructional strategies and provide ongoing support to teachers as they try the strategies themselves 1 2 3 4 Classroom Coaching (One-on-One) – observe teachers in a nonthreatening manner in order to provide feedback through reflective dialogue 1 2 3 4 Content Area Reading – discuss/share strategies and ideas to enhance content area reading and writing 1 2 3 4 Differentiated Instruction –work with teachers to develop and implement differentiated instruction to meet the needs of individual learners 1 2 3 4 Materials – assist teachers in selection and analysis of content area text and instructional materials 1 2 3 4 Standard 3: Skillful Evaluators of literacy Needs Assessment –lead faculty in understanding, selecting, and using multiple forms of assessments as diagnostic tools to guide instructional decision making and enhance both teacher and program effectiveness 1 2 3 4 Analyze Data and Monitor Student Progress – meet with teachers to examine student work and evaluate their success while analyzing trends and results 1 2 3 4 Conduct Assessment – for individuals or groups of students 1 2 3 4 Standard 4: Skillful instructional Strategists Content Area Knowledge – know how reading and writing processes relate with the various disciplines (i.e. english language arts, math, science, and social studies) 1 2 3 4 Provide Instruction – for individuals or small groups of students who are struggling readers (push-in, pull-out, or both settings) 1 2 3 4