Date of Award

Spring 5-2008

Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


Education & Educational Psychology

First Advisor

Kathryn Campbell, PhD

Second Advisor

Michael Wilson, PhD

Third Advisor

Genie Slone, PhD


The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of literacy coaching on teacher strategy use and student reading comprehension. A convenience sample of 20 third-grade teachers and their students (n=330) participated in this study. Literacy coaches were identified as experts in the area of literacy, reading, and teaching methodologies. They provided job-embedded staff development to teachers with the intent of improving teacher effectiveness and student learning. The coaching consisted of three levels (in-class coaching, consultant coaching, and no coaching). Before treatment, the researcher provided an initial 3-hour presentation on summarization, the instructional focus of the study. Then, seven literacy coaches in seven schools administered the coaching treatment during an 8-week coaching cycle. The two treatment groups (in-class and consultant) received different numbers and/or combinations of follow-up coaching training. This study utilized a pre-post test, quasi-experimental design. Parametric and nonparametric statistics were used to analyze the data.

In order to measure whether the type of coaching (in-class coaching, consultant coaching, or no coaching) impacted teacher strategy use, the Concern Based Adoption Model’s (CBAM) Levels of Use (LoU) structured interview was administered pre and post treatment to investigate gains achieved by the teachers in the implementation of summarization. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated a significant difference in teachers’ use of summarization among teachers in the different coaching conditions. The in-class coaching group attained significantly more growth than the no coaching group. However, no significant differences were found between the consultant coaching group and the in-class coaching group or between the consultant coaching group and the no coaching group.

The second research question examined how literacy coaching (in-class coaching, consultant coaching, and no coaching) affected students’ reading comprehension. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze this question. Reading comprehension was measured pre- and post-treatment using an instrument developed by the researcher, the Assessment for Reading Comprehension (ARC-A and ARC-B). Students’ pre reading comprehension (ARC-A) and overall reading achievement (Degrees of Reading Power) served as covariates to produce adjusted means to equate post-treatment reading achievement scores based on initial reading ability. ANCOVA results indicated a significant difference among the three coaching groups. Results of the Bonferroni procedure indicated that the in-class coaching group’s ARC-B scores were significantly higher than those of both the consultant coaching group and the no coaching group.