{"id":12518,"date":"2023-01-25T20:29:49","date_gmt":"2023-01-25T20:29:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2023-05-24T19:57:39","modified_gmt":"2023-05-24T19:57:39","slug":"the-perceived-benefits-of-coaching-in-online-literacy-clinics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-23\/issue-1-23\/current-practice\/the-perceived-benefits-of-coaching-in-online-literacy-clinics","title":{"rendered":"The Perceived Benefits of Coaching in Online Literacy Clinics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The literacy field is on a challenging journey, as evidenced by the Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals <\/em>(International Literacy Association, 2017) and the current trend to move literacy clinic courses online (Helfrich & Smith, 2011). On the one hand, entire literacy programs have been moved online to eliminate the challenge of driving to campus for some students or free the classroom space for other purposes (Risko & Reid, 2018). On the other hand, the complexity of the standards and growing diversity of the P-12 students call for increasing rigor in the preparation of literacy professionals. In addition, these standards stress teacher collaboration, which can be more difficult in online environments because time and place require more forethought in designing online curricula than synchronous face-to-face instruction and collaboration. Not all teacher education programs have the expertise to design such learning environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a demand to move clinical experiences online to maintain the Center for Disease Control\u2019s (CDC) guidelines for social distancing. Because the pandemic caused many K-12 schools to shift from in-person learning to online or blended learning, learning and teaching in literacy courses that prepare future literacy specialists dramatically changed as well (Laster, 2020). Many literacy clinics had to switch to online delivery because K-12 schools could not host master\u2019s degree literacy students at school sites for the purpose of tutoring children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, the urge to teach such courses online in March 2020 created chaos and uncertainty, especially for those who needed to switch instantly (Laster, 2020). In spring 2020, some face-to-face literacy clinics even shut down, while those that remained in operation had to go through a significant transformation in instructional delivery methods. As a result, some became a one-layered remote clinic. That is, the supervisor\/coach was remote from the tutor, and the tutor taught face-to-face in classrooms or clinics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some began functioning as two-layered remote clinics (Laster, 2020), with the supervisor\/coach being remote from the tutor and the tutor also being remote from the student. In other cases, when it was impossible to run a clinic, instructors turned to state education departments\u2019 guidance regarding which alternative learning experiences could count as clinical experiences when tutoring children face-to-face could not take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The literacy field also drew awareness to digital divides that teaching online created for children learning remotely. Many children had no access to computers or the Internet. In some cases, while some children used technology to access various texts and content, other children used technology as rote drill practice, similar to worksheets. There were also issues with the constrains of technologies, especially regarding the extent to which the technologies allowed the teachers to scaffold learning. Many teachers had difficulties scaffolding instruction using learning technologies especially with young children (Laster, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other instances, students\u2019 learning was reduced to accessing messages from the teacher, such as, \u201cMake sure to read every day,\u201d as opposed to the teacher working more with the child. As a result of the new circumstances caused by the pandemic, instructors teaching clinic courses had to tackle multiple layers of new course delivery, both in terms of how to deliver such courses well using online modes of instruction, as well as how to guide future literacy professionals in teaching children via online technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking into account the new need to devise a rigorous online education preparing future literacy professionals in ever-changing circumstances, this study was paramount in respect to determining how literacy programs might adroitly shift to online clinical experiences in a way that can effectively support teachers\u2019 teaching and learning. This article describes a study of the ways in-service teachers worked as coaches in online clinics and the ways graduate students perceived the coaches\u2019 presence and coaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Findings from this study contribute to a need for research involving online literacy teacher preparation (which includes insights into to using online tools to improve reflection, peer feedback to increase teacher reflection, video for preservice teachers\u2019 reflection, and digital tools to aid in incorporating authentic children\u2019s literature into instruction; Karchmer-Klein & Pytash, 2019). At the time when literacy clinics have undergone changes in delivery due to both internal demands and COVID-19 restrictions, the field needs to experiment with and enhance existing and new ways for offering instructional delivery, such as employing external coaches from local schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our aim was also to explore participants\u2019 perspectives on coaching practices involving external literacy coaches in online literacy clinics as an addition to peer and instructor collegial feedback. Studying perspectives on novel practices like online coaching from external literacy professionals may lead to substantial understanding of the value of learning, which can be positively linked to outcomes (Brantmeier, 2005; Cochran et al., 2010; Donato et al., 2000; Graham, 2004; Mills et al., 2006, 2007; Wesely, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceptions are also significant to this study because they consequently influence teachers\u2019 behavior (Roelofs & Terwel, 1999). Just like teachers\u2019 perceptions relate to their own teaching behavior, our tutors\u2019 and coaches\u2019 perceptions appeared to correspond to their own dispositions regarding teaching and coaching collaboration in clinic courses, as well as their own professional learning communities in their local schools. Second, insight into perceptions may lead to improvement of teaching. Since teaching is built from teachers\u2019 perceptions (Lee & Tsai, 2005), reflective practice about teachers\u2019 perspectives on coaching can shape and improve teaching. In addition, it is important to allow multiple voices to research perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs that take into account various unique perspectives to locate new directions for research (Wesely, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By describing how participants perceived the practice of online coaching, we hope to encourage teacher educators to consider employing such experiences during the formal preparation of literacy professionals. The main research question for this study was, \u201cIn what ways did tutors and coaches perceive coaching in online literacy clinics?\u201d By framing the question in this way, we did not assume that their perceptions of this coaching experience would be either positive or negative, but we were curious to see what these perceptions were. Since we did not grade tutors\u2019 course reflections for content and we interviewed tutors after they graduated, we minimized the extent to which participants would be swayed in their responses. We shared course reflections with the coaches without tutors\u2019 names, and we informed tutors that these reflections would be shared anonymously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coaching<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Literature on coaching in general describes the power of coaching as a practice, which Scribner and Cole (2020) defined as \u201csocially developed and patterned ways of using technology and knowledge to accomplish tasks\u201d (p. 17).  Socially developed and patterned ways of good coaching are typified as coming from dedicated coaches who talk through problems as they arise in situ, raise questions and ideas, and facilitate such tenets as self-esteem, motivation, and achievement in the coaches\u2019 mentees (Serrat, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coaching differs from conventional training in a way that the practice of coaching focuses on the person, helping the person reflect without imposing ideas. Coaching is also continuing in nature, not a one-time event (Serrat, 2017). It should also involve accurate questioning, active listening, and clear feedback.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Various studies showed effectiveness of coaching in several disciplines. Jones et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of research on the success of coaching provided by external or internal coaches in the areas of management, health care, and teaching and noted a positive impact on skills, with positive effects resulting from e-coaching and stronger effects from internal coaches and multisource feedback. Bachkirova et al. (2020) used mixed methods to study coaching in medical systems to evaluate coaching and found that coaching substantially contributed to participants\u2019 changes in their practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within the field of education, coaching has been intensively studied, as well. For instance, Allan (2007) examined formative evaluation reviews, data from reflection notes, and an extensive summative feedback evaluation questionnaire in which the research supported the practice of coaching, in that the secondary-level staff benefited from coaching as professional development. In early elementary education, Ehri and Flugman (2018) investigated the effectiveness of the long-term coaching of first grade teachers on using systematic phonics. Mentors taught teachers how to provide systematic phonics instruction to their 1,336 students. Monthly ratings by mentors revealed that teachers improved their phonics teaching skills with many reaching the highest ratings by May. Silver et al. (2009) studied a university-based coaching program for new administrators and found that participants had a positive opinion about coaching as well as about a personal feel to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instructional Technology Coaches<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the education field, although coaching has some commonalities across different niche fields within education, there are also some unique differences in terms of practice since these disparate areas of education have their own standards for preparation of such professionals. The need for coaching in instructional technology has grown (Johnston, 2015; Peterson, 2015), as students in schools use more educational technology (i.e., laptops, phones, and tablets) and the integration of technology into the curriculum is required. In addition, such support has grown recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As teachers needed to move instantly to online learning without adequate preparation time, such a move required support from instructional technology coaches (Bakhshae et al., 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An instructional technology coach, someone who has studied instructional technology at the master\u2019s degree level, serves on a district\u2019s technology team and assists teachers in personalized ways in using technology to enhance their instruction. Essentially, instructional technology coaches are school leaders who usually have teaching experience, as well as advanced education in educational coaching in order to provide what Bakhshae et al. (2020) called \u201cdeep coaching\u201d (p. 3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the presence and help from an instructional technology coach encourages teachers to use technology in teaching (Beglau et al., 2011). Such coaches also constantly improve their coaching practice, including their knowledge about technology integration strategies, establish professional relationships with educators conducive to improving instruction and outcomes, model technology integration, and guide educators in designing technology-enhanced learning experiences that meet students\u2019 needs and interests. Additionally, they design professional learning for educators in the area of incorporating technology, they help in collecting and analyzing students\u2019 data, and they support both students and teachers in digital citizenship (Hew & Brush, 2007; International Society for Technology in Education, 2011; Kim et al., 2013; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Zhao & Frank, 2003).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research also shows that teachers view instructional technology coaching more favorably than professional development workshops (Sugar, 2005). Similarly, MacDonald (2018) investigated the effectiveness of the role of an instructional technology coach in a K-8 school district and found that coaching by an instructional technology coach was more effective than conventional professional development as such coaching was individualized and situated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Research also points to the effectiveness of instructional technology coaching. In a recent study, researchers found that teachers who collaborated with educational technology coaches utilized technology more often for teaching and reported feeling more confident in their ability to use technology to better engage students in learning than their peers who did not collaborate with such coaches (Bakhshaei et al., 2020). However, it is also important to note that such coaching should have certain characteristics in order to be effective. Bakhshaei et al. (2019) noted that teachers should be seen as partners in these collaborations. They also noted that coaching needs to be personalized and focused on individualized teaching challenges with solutions immediately tried. In addition, they stressed that support for teachers should be sustained and coaches should be supported so that they can support teachers in all content areas. Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2020) identified similar features of successful coaching, such as relationships with teachers and personalized support. Consequently, these successful coaching features resulted in higher levels of technology integration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literacy Coaches<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Literacy coaches also work with teachers and handle establishing professional relationships, modeling to and guiding teachers, and providing professional development; however, these activities are devoted to strengthening literacy teaching in a school district (International Literacy Association, 2017). In addition, literacy coaches can help teachers in integrating digital technologies, especially to enhance students\u2019 myriad literacies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literacy coaches must have at least a master\u2019s degree in literacy. Coaching in literacy is \u201ca process of facilitated inquiry that enables teachers to make decisions, solve problems, and set and achieve both individual goals and the goals of the organization, specifically to improve classroom instructional practices and student literacy learning\u201d (Bean & Ippolito, 2016, p. 5). In school settings, literacy coaches help teachers use data to inform literacy instruction, model effective literacy strategies, observe teaching and provide feedback, and meet with teachers and provide one-on-one coaching. In addition, such coaches can coordinate the school literacy program and help administrators in literacy curriculum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literacy coaching has been also the core idea in preparation of future literacy professionals in literacy clinical experiences because it aims at increasing teachers\u2019 expertise (Lockwood et al., 2010). Teachers\u2019 expertise has a tremendous impact on students\u2019 literacy development (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Snow et al., 2005). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results of a recent nationwide survey indicated a continuing need for university graduate preparation programs to include experiences designed to prepare candidates for coaching roles in authentic situations to teach how to use coaching language effectively in coaching situations (Bean et al., 2015). Usually, instructors play the role of coaches in literacy clinics (Laster, 2013), or doctoral students who often assist instructors (Collett, 2012). Additionally, in some programs, graduate students act as coaches and mentor preservice teachers (Maloch et al., 2015) or get involved in peer coaching, where some are coached by more experienced teachers (Massey et al., 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although research on coaching by individuals other than course instructors is scarce, this research suggests that such practices are valuable (Massey et al., 2019). The emerging research also points to the affordances of digital tools that can make such coaching possible (Howell et al., 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research on utilizing in-service teachers as coaches who work in collaboration with university faculty members in online literacy clinics and are not themselves students taking these courses is scarce, because online clinics are new phenomena themselves and current research mostly describes various online clinic designs (Helfrich & Smith, 2011; Lilienthal, 2014; Vokatis, 2018). In other instances, some studies on online clinics describe tutors\u2019 collaboration mostly with each other (Massey et al., 2019; Sharma & Pang, 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, we use the term tutors<\/em> in reference to graduate students taking literacy clinics. We use the term coaches <\/em>in reference to in-service teachers with a master\u2019s degree in literacy hired by the literacy clinic to coach tutors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conceptual Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We adopted a sociocognitive perspective for this study, particularly the notion of communities of practice while situating students\u2019 learning within a particular community of practice (Wenger, 2011) \u2013 where members of this community of practice aim to become effective literacy specialists. The concept of community of practice is particularly suitable for these community interactions because the coaching community described in this study consisted of individuals who did not only share the same interests but also learned from each other in joint activities and, thus, built shared practice as a result. This shared practice can be developed through such activities as problem solving, requesting information, seeking experience, reusing assets, or visits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study Design<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This study follows a qualitative case study design (Yin, 2018). Specifically, it is a systematic investigation of a community of tutors and coaches who engaged in coaching for the purpose of providing tutors with learning opportunities from experienced teachers. For the analysis of transcribed interviews and course reflections, we implemented a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2015) as well as reflexivity (Dowling, 2008) in order to establish trustworthiness of this research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Our department is housed in a 4-year liberal arts public college and offers two nationally accredited reading programs for master\u2019s level students: Master of Education, Literacy Education Birth-Grade 6, and Master of Education, Literacy Education Grades 5-12. Each tutor takes two required clinics after finishing foundational courses, as well as before enrolling in action research courses to finalize the master\u2019s program. Each clinic is a three-credit course involving not only weekly tutoring of a child, but also course readings and discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In each clinic, the tutor received a final grade. For example, if tutors completed the program as full-time graduate students, after they completed foundational courses the prior the summer they would take the first clinic in the fall and the second one in the spring. If tutors took the program as part time, they would take the clinics in the 2nd year of the program. In the first clinic, tutors teach single students, and in the second clinic, they teach groups of two to four students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until spring 2016, our tutors took literacy programs in the blended version, taking all but the clinical coursework online and taking literacy clinics face to face. Before 2015, clinic courses were university based, and most of students were university employees\u2019 children. In 2015, clinics moved to a P-12 setting and, in 2016, transferred to an online mode. Once clinics went online, our tutors tutored students in schools where they worked or substituted. Tutors recruited students with school administration\u2019s approval and recommendation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clinic Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To establish online clinics, we modified Toll\u2019s (2016) problem-solving model of coaching and used video of teaching as a primary tool. First, video allows one to capture and easily transmit a complex activity (Marsh & Mitchell, 2014). Second, because video can be viewed in depth after teaching takes place, the video-artifact allows for in-depth reflection, as opposed to relying only on memory, which may result in missing some aspects (Tripp & Rich, 2012). In our clinics, the coach watched a video from each student and provided feedback following Toll\u2019s model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to this model, coaching started with a problem identified by the tutor. We modified the model slightly to fit the demands of online teaching. Using the model, the coach would ask the tutor a question that helps the tutor in identifying the problem: \u201cWhen you think of the reading and writing you want your students to do and the teaching you want to do, what gets in the way?\u201d (Toll, 2016, p. 416). However, in the online clinic environment, face-to-face conversations between the tutor and the coach are difficult to achieve. Therefore, we provided tutors with this helpful question while explaining what it means to identify a problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A synchronous video conference between the coach and tutor occurred later in the process. First, after tutoring, the tutor identified and described a tutoring problem in the form of a video reflection. The coach reviewed the video and provided written feedback to the tutor that detailed some suggestions on how to solve the issue. Then, tutors used the feedback in their next tutoring session and contacted the coach to schedule a video conference to follow up on the coach\u2019s feedback incorporation of the instructional methods and to brainstorm further solutions, which aligns with the continuing coaching cycle described by Toll (2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our clinic, each coach interacted only once with each tutor in this way. The second interaction took place with the instructor of the course. Synchronous video conferences with coaches occurred based on a rotating schedule and were one on one (one coach and one tutor). Each conference took about 30-60 minutes, depending on the needs of the conferencing tutor. Each conference started with the coach asking how helpful the feedback was with addressing instructional challenges, how the teaching session went, and what new issues arose that the coach could help with. The coaches were also open to additional requests of instructional support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We designed our online clinic as a one-layered remote clinic. This means that the supervisor\/coach is remote from the tutor, and the tutor teaches school children synchronously face to face. In our clinics, the supervisor\/coach did not observe in-the-moment teaching but watches videos of recorded teaching. Only video conferences between the coach and the tutor that follow teaching occurred synchronously. However, in remote clinics at other institutions, in-the-moment observations may take place. In March 2020, our clinics began to also function as two-layered remote clinics (Laster, 2020), with the supervisor\/coach being remote from the tutor, and the tutor being remote from the student.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Eighteen tutors and three coaches participated in the study. We recruited tutors from three sections of a master\u2019s level online clinic. Most of tutors had 1-2 years of teaching experience, and some were substitute teachers. All three coaches were former students of first author Vokatis, and they had completed literacy clinics with her in face-to-face clinics. At the time of coaching, one coach had 4 years of teaching experience as a classroom teacher. Another coach had 5 years of experience as a classroom teacher and 3 years as a literacy specialist. The third coach had 2 years of experience as a literacy specialist and as special education teacher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We asked them to coach in the clinics because they performed well as students and peer coaches in the past, all had teaching experience, and all expressed a great interest in working with graduate students. At the time of the study, the coaches were no longer graduate students. They received a modest stipend through a university-sponsored grant that covered their coaching work, consisting of providing written feedback for each tutor once and connecting with each tutor once to discuss how teaching with the coach\u2019s written feedback worked. In addition, one eligible coach received in-service credits for participation. They coached in addition to their regular teaching duties. Because the coach could coach each tutor only once, the course instructor needed to coach as well to ensure that each tutor received a proper amount of feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prior to coaching, the first author Vokatis met with coaches and provided training by engaging the coaches in providing feedback using already existing clinic videos to make sure that our coaching was in line with the teaching and learning literacy we promoted in the courses. Once coaching started in the courses, the training did not stop but changed. The instructor met with coaches to discuss teaching cases that were more challenging and required sharing ideas about handling a particular teaching problem to provide the best possible direction for the tutor and the tutored child. We matched coaches with particular course sections randomly. Once coaching started, coaches familiarized themselves with the course on Blackboard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First author Vokatis also periodically debriefed with coaches to discuss some instances of coaching to make sure that our coaching would be similar. Coaches also received journal entries from tutors, in which tutors described how coaching improved their instruction, if it did. As far as Vokatis\u2019s role as instructor, she also coached and graded all course assignments. Second author Gibbins is a colleague from the same institution. Although he is not directly involved in teaching in clinics, his expertise in organizing and leading professional development with preK-16 educators as part of the National Writing Project allowed us to work together on various internal grant applications that would support stipends for practitioners providing coaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data Collection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For this study, we analyzed 18 tutors\u2019 course reflections and 18 transcripts from interviews with them. We also interviewed three literacy coaches who coached these tutors in three course sections in fall 2017. Because our focus was tutors\u2019 perceptions of coaching, these interviews and course reflections were our main qualitative data. We did not analyze video coaching sessions for this study, as such data would require different analytical tools and methods of analysis that would not align to the research questions of this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The grading factor did not influence interviews and course reflections since we interviewed the tutors after they had graduated, and we did not grade their course reflections for substance. The reflection prompt was, \u201cWhat are your experiences from interacting with the coach?\u201d Each Skype videoconferencing interview took approximately 15-20 minutes, focusing on the value of distance coaching experience from tutors\u2019 and coaches\u2019 perspectives and incorporating communities of practice (Wenger, 2011). Because communities of practice are created by people who want to improve their practices through engaging in learning from each other to build a shared practice, our questions asked participants to share what they learned in these interactions. We started in an open-ended way by asking participants to describe these experiences. Tutors shared learning gains with Vokatis in emails, and their course reflections informed the second question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interview questions for graduate students included the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n