47 Full

Journal of Literacy Research http://jlr.sagepub.
com/
The Emotional Landscapes of Literacy Coaching: Issues of Identity, Power, and Positioning
Carolyn S. Hunt and Lara J. Handsfield Journal of Literacy Research 2013 45: 47 originally published online 11 January 2013 DOI: 10.1177/1086296X12469969 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/45/1/47
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Literary Research Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Literacy Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/45/1/47.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 11, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 11, 2013 What is This?
Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013
469969
nal of Literacy ResearchHunt and Handsfield
JLR45110.1177/1086296X12469969Jour
Article
The Emotional Landscapes of Literacy Coaching: Issues of Identity, Power, and Positioning
Carolyn S. Hunt1 and Lara J. Handsfield1
Journal of Literacy Research 45(1) 4786 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1086296X12469969 jlr.sagepub.com
Abstract In this article, the researchers use positioning theory and de Certeaus theoretical insights into cultural production in everyday life to examine how first-year literacy coaches negotiate issues of power, positioning, and identity during their professional development. Data were collected during a yearlong qualitative study of literacy coaches participating in a districtuniversity partnership to provide professional development to first-year literacy coaches. The researchers used positioning analysis of three small stories drawn from interviews with literacy coaches and one vignette from a professional development session to investigate how the literacy coaches positioned themselves within the moral order of the districts literacy and professional development model. Findings demonstrate how the literacy coaches both shaped and were shaped by the institutional spaces through which they moved as they tactically negotiated conflicting expectations and discourses about coaching.These negotiations highlight the emotional nature of literacy coaches work as they co-constructed their identities and negotiated understandings of how school spaces are used and the purposes of literacy coaching. The researchers argue that it is necessary to move beyond current conceptions of literacy coaching as a series of roles and tasks to recognize the complexities of literacy coaching and to offer more meaningful professional development for literacy coaches. Keywords literacy coaching, coaches, discourse analysis (oral or written), poststructural, postmodernism, professional development of teachers, attitudes, beliefs
1
Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
Corresponding Author: Carolyn S. Hunt, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Illinois State University, DeGarmo Hall 232, Normal, IL 61790-5330, USA. Email: cshunt@ilstu.edu
48
Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)
Literacy coaching has great potential for providing meaningful embedded professional development in the authentic, everyday work of teachers. Indeed, districts across the country have invested in literacy coaches in the hope of impacting teacher quality and student achievement (Dole, Liang, Watkins, & Wiggins, 2006), and scholars have written about the promise of literacy coaching for supporting teachers professional growth and school reform efforts (International Reading Association, 2004; Mangin, 2009; Steckel, 2009; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010). However, since literacy coaching is a relatively new development in education, there remains much to be learned about how literacy coaches perform their work. To that end, many researchers have explored how literacy coaches spend their time (Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, & Zigmond, 2010; Bean, Swan, & Knaub, 2003), what roles they perform, and how others perceive their roles (Buell, Han, Blamey, & Vukelich, 2010; Duessen, Coskie, Robinson, & Autio, 2007; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Although this focus on role has advanced the fields understanding of the difficulties coaches face, it has not fully addressed the complexities of literacy coaching. In this study, we complicate the notion of role as we explore the following question: How do first-year literacy coaches negotiate issues of power, positioning, and identity during training?1 We ground our analyses in positioning theory and de Certeaus theoretical insights regarding power and cultural production in everyday life. As Collins and Blot (2003) suggest, Power has microscopic dimensions, small, intimate, everyday dimensions (p. 5). With this in mind, we apply a microanalytic lens to three small stories (Bamberg, 2004) shared by participants, and one vignette of a professional development session to illustrate their negotiations of power and identity during their training to become literacy coaches. Our findings suggest that instructing literacy coaches in how to simply enact various roles in appropriate ways is not sufficient. Rather, building on Hargreavess (2000) notion of emotional geographies, we argue that literacy coaches professional development needs to provide a supportive space for navigating the emotional landscapes of becoming a literacy coach and negotiating their new professional identities. Ultimately, these understandings can shed light on how to prepare coaches to build strong, trusting relationships with teachers, with the goal of leveraging pedagogical change and positively affecting student learning.
Review of Related Literature Conceptualizing the Roles of Literacy Coaches

Much of the research on literacy coaching has focused on the concept of role. A main line of this research serves to identify the tasks performed within certain roles. For instance, in a frequently cited article, Dole (2004) described the changing roles of reading specialists from 12 Title I schools in Utah. Over 7 years, Dole informally observed how these reading specialists moved from working primarily with students toward coaching teachers through teaching demonstrations and modeling of lessons. In another study based on a survey of 58 principals in 12 different states, Bean et al.
Hunt and Handsfield
49
(2003) identified a list of the most common tasks of literacy coaches in highperforming schools and attached those tasks to five specific roles: resource to teachers, resource to other stakeholders, coordinator of the reading program, contributor to assessment, and instructor. Similarly, Duessen et al. (2007) conducted surveys and interviews with reading specialists, teachers, and principals in 190 schools from five different states to determine which tasks were performed by literacy coaches. They categorized these tasks as related to the primary roles of coaching, assessing, or providing interventions to students. Other researchers have presented a series of possible roles for literacy coaches, which depend on factors such as the intended outcomes of coaching and the expectations of teachers and principals (Otaiba, Hosp, Smartt, & Dole, 2008; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Rather than viewing literacy coaches role as characterized by what they do, these studies present the role as who the literacy coaches are in relation to others expectations. For instance, Walpole and Blamey (2008) interviewed principals and coaches from 20 schools in Georgia and identified the following roles of literacy coaches: assessor, observer, modeler, teacher, curriculum manager, and trainer. They argued that all of these roles fall within either a mentor role that focuses on supporting teachers at the classroom level or a director role that focuses on promoting change at the school level. Similarly, Vanderburg and Stephens (2010) analyzed interview data from 35 teachers to identify three roles that the teachers found helpful: coach as encourager, coach as facilitator, and coach as demonstrator. Using survey and interview data from six elementary schools, Mraz, Algozzine, and Watson (2008) determined that principals, teachers, and literacy coaches held varied perceptions and expectations of the following coaching roles: resource to classroom teacher, instructor to students, resource to the community, and contributor to assessment. Research on literacy coaches roles and tasks highlights several important points. First, roles are open to interpretation, and coaches, teachers, and principals may all have different expectations about what coaches should do and how they should behave (Mraz et al., 2008; Otaiba et al., 2008; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Second, role confusion has been shown to cause frustration for literacy coaches and to impede their work with teachers and principals (Hibbert, Heydon, & Rich, 2008; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010). Finally, many researchers argue that defined roles are needed for literacy coaches to be effective providers of high-quality professional development and to develop guidelines for preparing, hiring, and supporting coaches (Dole et al., 2006; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010; Mraz et al., 2008). However, many factors may complicate coaches ability to perform different tasks and roles.
Contextualizing Literacy Coaches Roles

Several researchers have illustrated how a literacy coachs ability to perform a role can be limited by contextual factors (Chval et al., 2010; Hibbert et al., 2008; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010; Mangin, 2009; Matsumura, Garnier, Correnti, Junker, & Bickel, 2010; McLean, Mallozzi, Hu, & Dailey, 2010; Rainville & Jones, 2009; Smith, 2007).
50
For instance, coaches have expressed frustrations with limited time for collaboration, inadequate resources and materials, and resistance from teachers (Hibbert et al., 2008; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010; Otaiba et al., 2008; Smith, 2007). The effectiveness of coaching can also depend on organizational factors such as reform measures, principal leadership, finances, and the existing norms of the professional community (Lynch & Ferguson, 2010; Mangin, 2009; Matsumura et al., 2010). The coachs role may also be affected by a change in teacher expectations across grade levels (Buell et al., 2010; Smith, 2007). In a case study of one literacy coach, Otaiba et al. (2008) found that the primary grade teachers appreciated the support of the coach, whereas the teachers in the intermediate grades expected her to play the role of direct service provider to struggling readers rather than the role of collaborative consultant to teachers. These upper-grade teachers wondered why the coach did not have time to work one-on-one with students and challenged the idea that the coach had all the answers associated with their adopted reading program.
Exploring Roles Through Professional Development

Given the complexities of negotiating varying roles, job descriptions, and expectations, some have argued that it is crucial for literacy coaches to receive adequate preparation and support (Hibbert et al., 2008; Rainville & Jones, 2009). For instance, Blachowicz et al. (2010) identified 10 principles for preparing coaches, including collaboration and helping coaches in training to define their roles over time. Walpole and Blamey (2008) recommended that literacy coaches engage in self-reflection to learn on the job, and Mraz et al. (2008) suggested that coaches participate in a variety of training opportunities, including professional conferences, study groups, in-service sessions, and collaborative meetings with colleagues. Similarly, Hibbert et al. (2008) emphasized the importance of critically reflective professional development to provide coaches with adequate time to engage in deep thinking and meaningful conversations, draw on teachers funds of knowledge, and pose questions. Finally, Bean et al. (2003) argued that coaches need training that is focused on leadership skills. Together, these studies provide a basis for exploring how, and if, such issues are addressed within professional development for literacy coaches.
Identity, Power, and Positioning

A handful of studies, including some of the ones described above, have considered how literacy coaches negotiations with issues of positioning, power, and identity within their school contexts affect their roles. Hibbert et al. (2008) documented how lead literacy teachers in Canada were positioned in the space between governmental mandates and children (p. 306) as they struggled to implement a curriculum that was in conflict with the practical knowledge of teachers. They argued that a focus on program implementation, dissemination of knowledge, and a forced hierarchy narrowed the role of the lead teachers and positioned other teachers as deficient. Rainville and
Hunt and Handsfield
51
Jones (2009) shared how one literacy coach enacted situated identities as she interacted with teachers in different ways according to a variety of expectations, relationships, and positions. Chval et al. (2010) described how beginning mathematics coaches identities were shaped by a negotiation between their own and others expectations for their roles. Similarly, McLean et al. (2010) examined the language of two literacy coaches to determine how they viewed and positioned themselves and others in relation to the redelivery model of coaching supported by Reading First. Coburn and Woulfin (2012) also explored the nature of literacy coaches work within Reading First schools. They investigated the role of two coaches in mediating Reading First policies and the classroom practices of seven first and second grade teachers in an urban elementary school in Massachusetts. They concluded that, in addition to their educative roles, literacy coaches have a political role as they navigate the complicated intersection between power and learning (p. 6). Finally, in two recent studies, Ferguson (2011) explored how power relationships among literacy coaches, principals, and teachers affect coaching relationships and teacher resistance, and Crafton and Kaiser (2011) examined how common language used by coaches position them as either experts or as learning partners. Crafton and Kaiser argued that coaches should use quality discourses (such as collaborative and facilitative discourse) in their work with teachers, which allow the teachers to maintain an expert identity within a community of practice. These studies begin to recognize the complexities of literacy coaching and to examine literacy coaching through clearly defined theoretical frameworks. However, much of this research still focuses on role as the primary way of conceptualizing literacy coaching. For instance, Rainville and Jones (2009) focused on coaches situated identities across coaching situations, but they defined those identities in terms of roles that coaches might assume such as colearner, friend, knower, and colleague. Similarly, Chval et al. (2010) presented coaches identities in terms of the roles of supporter of teachers, supporter of students, and learner.
Limitations of Existing Research

A conceptualization of literacy coaching as carrying out a series of tasks and roles is common in the research on coaching (Bean et al., 2010; Buell et al., 2010; Duessen et al., 2007; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010), and this research has provided a better understanding of the complexities of coaching. Although this contribution is significant, the emphasis on tasks and roles can be problematic because it does not fully recognize or provide a robust theorization of the power relationships involved in coaching. A handful of recent studies have acknowledged these complexities and power relationships (e.g., Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Hibbert et al., 2008; McLean et al., 2010; Rainville & Jones, 2009). However, these examples are few. Furthermore, the bulk of the research has explained the roles of literacy coaches within a brief historical perspective of coaching (Mraz et al., 2008; Vanderburg & Stephens, 2010; Walpole & Blamey, 2008) or a model of professional development (Otaiba et al., 2008). Although helpful, such
52
historical framings do not make visible the assumptions about identity and power that guide research and interpretations. Although some studies have begun to illustrate the ways that roles shift across school and policy contexts, they have not fully considered the fluid and multifaceted nature of the co-construction of identities. For example, although Crafton and Kaiser (2011) address discursive positioning within literature discussions with teachers, the concepts of identity and positioning are not fully theorized. To our knowledge, only Rainville and Jones (2009) explicitly explored issues of identity construction for literacy coaches. They acknowledged that there are multiple roles that coaches perform differently based on contexts, position, and power; but they continue to examine only a few roles and to imply that there are appropriate ways for coaches to enact those roles in different contexts. Furthermore, none of the research we reviewed provides a micro-level analysis of coaches discursive positioning. In sum, the collective aim of research on literacy coaching has been to identify those roles and models that are most effective and to prescribe certain coaching behaviors (Ippolito, 2010; Mraz et al., 2008; Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, & Schock, 2009; Steckel, 2009; Walpole & Blamey, 2008). Although a clear job description can be helpful for literacy coaches, focusing too much on specific roles may limit understandings of the complexities of coaching interactions. As Vanderburg and Stephens (2010) argued, research needs to move beyond what coaches ought to do to closely examine their lived experiences and the intricacies of role performance. This study is grounded in the understanding that, for professional development activities to be effective, conceptualizations of literacy coaching will have to move beyond fixed and oversimplified definitions of roles and how they should be enacted.
Theoretical Framework
As noted in our introduction, we ground our analyses in positioning theory and de Certeaus theoretical insights regarding the practice of everyday lifehow social agents negotiate institutional and social structures in their daily practice.
The Limits of Role

Davies and Harr (1990) argued that the use of role serves to highlight static, formal and ritualistic aspects (p. 44) of social interactions and ignores the dynamic nature of identity construction. They suggested the move from role to position is both analytically and politically necessary in the study of people in their contemporary everyday worlds (p. 63). They defined positioning as the discursive process by which speakers locate themselves within a jointly constructed story line. Similarly, Harr and Van Langenhove (1999) defined positioning as the assignment of fluid parts or roles to speakers in the discursive construction of personal stories that make a persons actions intelligible and relatively determinate as social acts (p. 17). Such positioning is often based on interpretations of cultural stereotypes such as gender, class,
Hunt and Handsfield
53
race, and role (Davies & Harr, 1990). As such, we position ourselves and others based on our understandings of what is appropriate or expected for a particular kind of person (Gee, 2001) to say or do, and we interpret others meanings based on these understandings (Harr & Van Langenhove, 1999). Roles are just one of the many ways that people can position themselves or be positioned by others. Harr and Van Langenhove (1999) referred to this type of positioning as moral positioning because they argued that a role indexes a certain moral order. For example, mother indexes particular moral standards such as nurturing and wholesomeness. However, there are different understandings of the mothers role, which change based on how the mother is positioned in relation to broader social categories. They noted, for instance, how the role of mother changes by adding modifiers such as teenage mother or Jewish mother. McVee (2011) referred to this type of positioning as role positioning (p. 11). Ribiero (2006) also explained the differences between role and position, arguing that role is attached to our notions of social expectations and background knowledge, whereas position is interactional. He further explained that roles assume an a priori context and identity, whereas positioning acknowledges the interactional contexts in which we do identity. Thus, positioning theory recognizes fluidity, pushing researchers to observe the small, in-the-moment interactional moves that literacy coaches and teachers use as they work together, whereas theories emphasizing role freeze identity in space and time, depersonalizing and decontextualizing social interactions. Another weakness of role theory, as pointed out by Davies and Harr (1990), is its separation of the person from the role. Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, and ShuartFaris (2005) also noted this dualistic nature, arguing that it assumes a real person hidden beneath the performance of a role. They offered an alternative view that considers social identity as determined by interactions and location (social positioning) rather than by a real self or a simple enactment of a role. From this perspective, literacy coaches bring multiple identities and positions with them to any interaction, and they cannot simply take up different roles as if they were donning a mask.
Identity, Positioning, and Power

Moving beyond a static notion of role requires a dynamic understanding of identity and power in which identities are considered to be multiple and shifting (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Gee, 2001; Moje & Luke, 2009). Recent literacy research challenges conceptualizations of identity as a stable entity possessed by an individual. Rather, the concept of plural identities is often used to signal the idea that one person might enact many different identities, both across a developmental trajectory and within a variety of different contexts (Moje & Luke, 2009, p. 418; also see Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007). Accordingly, a coach would never possesses one static identity such as expert, colearner, or friend, but would interact with others based on a multiplicity of identities that draw on, but are not fully determined by, a wide variety of social contexts such as race, class, gender, age, religion, job assignment, parental status, and so on.
54
Furthermore, identities are viewed as socially constructed and reconstructed through the negotiations of everyday interactions (Bloome et al., 2005; Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Erickson, 2004; Gee, 2001; Moje & Luke, 2009). Identities are defined by others recognition of a certain kind of person (Gee, 2001). As Moje and Luke (2009) explained, a person is called into an identity by the recognitions or assignments of others, and the meanings the person makes of the identities available to him or her serve to constitute a sense of self or subjectivity (p. 419). In the case of coaching, this set of available meanings depends on the social contexts within which a literacy coach lives and works. These include local contexts such as interpersonal relationships, policy contexts such as required curriculum and high-stakes testing, and social constructions of difference such as issues of class, race, gender, and so on. A coach cannot independently enact any given role because the micro-level workings of social interactions and the macro-level forces of policy initiatives and dominant ideologies affect these co-constructed identities. Social agents may, however, resist dominant discourses by taking up language and texts in unanticipated ways and tactically renegotiating identities and roles (Bloome et al., 2005; Collins & Blot, 2003; de Certeau, 1984; Erickson, 2004). From this view, coaches do not passively conform to fixed roles but are active participants in the co-construction of social identities in motion across contexts (Bloome et al., 2005; Handsfield, Crumpler, & Dean, 2010). Bucholtz and Hall (2004) refer to this identity work as tactics of intersubjectivitythe local, situated, and often improvised quality of the everyday practices through which individuals, though restricted in their freedom to act by externally imposed constraints, accomplish their social goals (p. 382). This view of social practice is built on the work of de Certeau (1984), who theorized about the everyday practices of ordinary people in relation to space and power.
Tactics, Space, and Story

De Certeau (1984) was largely concerned with the difference between strategies and tactics. He defined strategies as the calculations of institutions in power used to define a proper place from which to manage and control subjects. Strategies create places in conformity with abstract models (p. 29) and are actions which, thanks to the establishment of a place of power (the property of a proper), elaborate theoretical places (systems and totalizing discourses) capable of articulating an ensemble of physical places in which forces are distributed (p. 38). De Certeaus notion of proper place is another way of understanding role as static and decontextualized, as well as universal understandings of best practices, which are understood to be transposable from one context to another. Unlike strategies, tactics are understood as the maneuvers of the less powerful used to make do within a place that does not belong to them. A tactic depends on timeit is always on the watch for opportunities that must be seized on the wing. Whatever it wins, it does not keep. It must constantly manipulate events in order to turn them into opportunities (De Certeau, 1984, p. xix). As such, tactics destabilize defined and proper places and
Hunt and Handsfield
55
identities; they spatialize them. In other words, people use tactics to make sense of, act within, and redefine physical spaces. These understandings are consistent with positioning theory and its critique of role in that they imply a process of taking up positions and people as agentive subjects. De Certeau emphasized a variety of tactics that are used by ordinary people within everyday practices to negotiate power, reconstruct space, and reposition themselves. Some of these tactics, such as the use of specific rhetorical devices or resistance through nonparticipation, can be premeditated and intentional. Other tactics, such as everyday language, are subtler, and individuals may not be fully aware of how they wield them to discursively negotiate issues of power, positioning, and identity. De Certeau (1984) describes the use of everyday, discursive negotiations as the art of speaking (p. 24) in which people dance their way to spontaneous creations of new meaning (Hartnett, 1998, p. 286). This in-the-moment, tacit level of negotiation opens up possibilities for redefining spaces and their boundaries. As de Certeau (1984) stated, Stories go in a procession ahead of social practices in order to open a field for them (p. 125). De Certeaus (1984) understandings of tactics, space, and positionality prompt us to consider boundaries and identities (such as coaches roles) as fluid and produced in practice. Indeed, he argued that space is a practiced place (p. 117) and that stories of practice serve as tactical and spatializing tools in this regard. In his essay Spatial Stories (1984), de Certeau characterized stories as spatial trajectories (p. 115) that preserve the mobility and fluidity of practice: Everyday stories tell us what one can do in and make out of [a space]. They are treatments of space (p. 121). These theoretical insights are particularly important for our analyses of literacy coaches small stories. In contrast to more traditional life narratives, small stories are the ephemeral narratives emerging in such everyday, mundane contexts, which it is argued constitute the performance of identities and the construction of self (Watson, 2007, p. 371). We view the coaches small stories as travel stories (de Certeau, 1984, p. 115), documenting their negotiations of the landscapes of their professional development. Although we are not the first to use de Certeaus theory of the practice of everyday life in the field of language and literacy studies, examples are somewhat sparse. Nevertheless, some research drawing on the work of de Certeau offers new ways of understanding power relations within schools and deserve mention here (Botzakis, 2008; Handsfield et al., 2010; Herron-Hruby, Hagood, & Alvermann, 2008; Larson & Gatto, 2004). Erickson (2004) for example, draws on the work of de Certeau to emphasize how interlocutors tactically negotiate discursive conventions in classrooms. In other work, Herron-Hruby et al. (2008) investigated how three adolescents and their teachers performed tactical practices as they negotiated their understandings of the appropriate uses of popular culture within the space of the other. Larson and Gatto (2004) theorized Gattos and her third grade students practices as tactics that served to negotiate standardizing ideologies. This work, particularly as related to teachers negotiations of different demands on their work, serves as a valuable model for examining the role of power in the work of literacy coaches as they negotiate and enact new identities.
56
Research Context and Method

In this study, we used constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and three-level positioning analysis (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) to examine three small stories (Bamberg, 2004) and one vignette of participants enrolled in professional development for literacy coaches. Our analyses were meant to help us understand how these coaches in training negotiated power, positioning, and identity during professional development activities. In this section, we describe the research context and participants, followed by a detailed discussion of our approach to data collection and analysis.
Research Setting
The study occurred within a large elementary district serving students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade in a midsize suburb in the Midwestern United States. The district consists of 10 schools, including six elementary schools (Grades K-3), two intermediate schools (Grades 4-6), and two junior high schools (Grades 7-8). The district student population is 93.6% White and 50% low income, and the total student enrollment is approximately 3,400. The district faculty population is 98.4% White and 88.7% female, with an average of 13.7 years of teaching experience. At the time of the study, the district had recently committed to implementing partnerships in comprehensive literacy (PCL). PCL is a school reform model developed by Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that aims to increase student achievement through implementation of a workshop model for core instruction and a layered model of intervention. PCL has four main components: (a) a classroom literacy framework that includes balanced literacy methods such as guided reading and writing workshop, (b) school-embedded professional development, (c) intervention programs for struggling readers, and (d) accountability and research. School-embedded professional development is provided by literacy coaches who collaborate with teachers to improve classroom literacy learning, design instruction based on ongoing assessment data, and provide interventions for students who are struggling with the general curriculum (see www.arliteracymodel.com). To implement the PCL model, the participating school district provided each school with a full-time literacy coach. This was accomplished by modifying an existing position, currently responsible for monitoring student data, participating in intervention design, and providing small group interventions for struggling students. The position was modified to include a significant amount of time collaborating with teachers about classroom literacy instruction. During the year in which the study took place, 10 coaches received intensive training on the PCL model and literacy coaching techniques. Of the coaches, 7 held the existing position that was being modified, whereas 3 were classroom teachers moving into the position for the first time. The yearlong training was provided through a redelivery model in partnership with a university program. Four district literacy coordinators took 21 hours of coursework from the university in the prior year and then were the instructors
Hunt and Handsfield

Table 1. Data Collected From Participants.
Professional development observations Coach Sandy Isabella Bree Yvette Dates: Mid-March, early April, early April, mid-April, late May Date April May March May April May Classroom observations Event Coteaching in Kindergarten classroom Grade level meeting Observing and coteaching in 2nd grade classroom Planning meeting with kindergarten teacher Observing and conferencing with teacher in 1st grade classroom Teaching 3rd grade small group intervention Date March April March May April May Interviews Timing
57
After school After school Directly after observation Directly before observation Directly after observation Directly after observation
on record for the 9 hours of coursework that the literacy coaches received through on-site professional development. The on-site training included professional development sessions during school hours twice a week, significant time to practice coaching strategies with a partner teacher, reflective assignments, and extensive readings. The partner teachers were regular classroom teachers in the coaches schools who were not going through the training but were willing to work with the coaches as a lab classroom. Each week, the literacy coaches attended one 2-hour session on theory led by the district literacy coaches, where they discussed their readings from an extensive book list focused on literacy coaching and literacy interventions. They also attended one 3-hour session in a lab classroom where they observed and practiced coaching techniques together.
Participants
All 10 building literacy coaches were invited to participate in the study, and 7 agreed to participate. Although all 7 were included in the observations of professional development meetings, 3 were selected for one-on-one interviews and individual observations based on years of teaching experience and grade level (see Table 1). First, preference was given to coaches with the most years of experience. Second, coaches from primary schools were selected because the group had split up into primary and middle grades for some of their professional development activities. To protect the confidentiality of the three focus participants, they are described here as a group and in general terms. Sandy, Isabella, and Bree (all pseudonyms) were White, middleclass women with an average age of 45 and at least 15 years of teaching experience in the district. A fourth coach, Yvette, is also featured in this article in the form of a vignette recalling an occurrence during a professional development meeting. Yvette is a White middle-class woman in her 30s with 10 years of experience in the district.
58
Researcher Positionality
It is important to acknowledge our own social positions as researchers and how our positionality may have affected our data collection and interpretations. We are both university-based researchers who are engaged in pre- and in-service teacher development as part of our work. Carolyn is a White female from a working-class background and a former elementary and middle school teacher and literacy coach. Lara is a White female from a middle-class background and is a former elementary teacher. Carolyn designed the study and conducted all of the data collection and the majority of analyses throughout the project. Of importance, Carolyn worked in the district for 1 year as an interventionist, in the position that existed prior to this study and that was modified to include literacy coaching. As such, she had previous collegial relationships with all of the participants and insider knowledge about the research context. Laras participation in the research occurred largely behind the scenes with respect to data collection and initial analyses. This included collaborating with Carolyn regarding the design and implementation of the study. Lara had no interactions with participants or other teachers in the district prior to or during the study. After data collection and transcription were completed, Lara engaged alongside Carolyn in analysis of participants small stories.
Data Collection
Data were collected in the spring of 2011 by Carolyn and included three sources: interviews, observations, and artifacts collected from the professional development sessions. Two 60-minute semistructured interviews (Mertens, 1998) with the participating literacy coaches were conducted, audiotaped, and transcribed by the first author. The interviews were conducted in the literacy coaches offices at a convenient time for the participants. Some interviews occurred directly before or after a classroom observation, whereas others occurred at separate times (e.g., after school, during lunch hour). The interview protocol presented in Appendix A was used as a guide for the first interview, but questions were not asked in any particular order. Additional questions were generated in a conversational manner based on the participants responses. The protocol was also used as a basis for the second interview to see how the participants views had changed over time. However, the second interview followed the protocol less closely and included specific questions designed by Carolyn to elicit more information about interactions noted during observations and to provide clarification about statements made in the first interview. Carolyn took detailed field notes during observations of two classroom interactions per literacy coach and five professional development sessions, which involved all four focal participants. Classroom observations focused on the literacy coaches interactions with teachers and students within their assigned lab classroom and typically lasted 30 minutes each. Carolyn attempted to document participants and students
Hunt and Handsfield
59
interactions verbatim, although this was not always possible. Observations of professional development sessions focused on the seven participating literacy coaches involvement in and reactions to training activities. During these observations, she primarily focused on recording participants conversations, documenting their words verbatim whenever possible. She also noted participants physical positions in the room as well as notable gestures and physical reactions during conversations. Artifacts collected included documents from the training sessions, such as meeting agendas, assignment information, and samples from participants reflection journals, which were required as part of the university training. Two types of reflection journal entries were collected: One type included participants formal reaction to the weekly assigned readings, whereas the other entries were more informal reactions written immediately after the training sessions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis included two approaches: constant comparative analysis (CCA) to generate initial codes, categories, and themes; and positioning analysis of small stories (Bamberg, 2004) to understand participants micro-level negotiations of power and identity. Constant comparative analysis. CCA was used in a recursive process throughout and beyond the data collection process to generate initial codes as well as broader themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the first round of coding, field notes and transcripts were coded by marking lines of transcripts and field notes. These grounded codes were generally topical, but sometimes included the actual words of the participants, particularly when all three focal participants used similar phrases or wording. This resulted in a degree of wordiness in some of the codes; however, our goal here was to achieve a low level of inference in identifying these codes (Carspecken, 1996). Examples of specific codes include focusing on data-driven decision making, unclear expectations, conflicts and misunderstandings with administrators, and were not forcing ourselves on teachers. These grounded codes were subsequently categorized based on similarity in a process akin to axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Examples of categories include implementing best practices, expectations from teachers and administrators, and identifying success and failure in relation to coursework and professional development sessions. Finally, the categories were collapsed into two common themes within the coaches professional community: demonstrating expert knowledge; and building supportive, collaborative, and trusting relationships with teachers. See Table 2 for examples of the grounded codes and how they relate to the two generated themes. Throughout data collection and analysis, the participants expressed strong emotions associated with the two themes identified above. For example, participants occasionally cried during both interviews and professional development sessions, and also used words to describe their emotions (e.g., mad, uncomfortable). However,
60
Table 2. Codes and Themes. Category Theme 1: Demonstrating expert knowledge Implementing best practices Identifying success and failure in relation to coursework and professional development sessions Evaluating teachers
Examples of grounded codes Demonstrating skills in the lab classroom Following the official coaching cycle Documenting coaching Making sure everything is done the right way Focusing on data-driven decision making Implementing the PCL and CIM models Reading & writing workshop Reading & writing conferences Observing in classrooms Coteaching & coplanning Using coaching moves Applying research about what works Using best practices Establishing trusting relationships with teachers and colleagues Gaining access to classrooms Put on the spot
It was like a firing range Feeling of tension Supposed to be a safe zone Not my best work/not quality work Worried about doing a good job I need to prove myself Some teachers are resistant Things werent working in her classroom Im trying to lift her thinking Teachers have a lack of understanding of the model and coaching Expectations from district officials Course assignments We need to be experts Just one more thing that has to be done Need to share knowledge with the staff Too much paperwork Meetings take time away from school Unclear expectations Theme 2: Building supportive, collaborative relationships with teachers Identifying success and failure in relation I am relating with teachers to coaching in schools (continued)
Hunt and Handsfield

Table 2. (continued) Category Supporting teachers Expectations from teachers and administrators Examples of grounded codes
61
She is letting me come in to the classroom Im gaining acceptance as a leader Im losing confidence Im building rapport with teachers I feel like Im walking on eggshells around some teachers Conflicts and misunderstandings with administrators Were here to support teachers I will not judge her I was very nonthreatening We can trust each other It [plan for professional development] comes from the teachers Collaborating with teachers Building a learning community Im not trying to fix them Were not forcing ourselves on teachers Mentor I am not an evaluator Interventionist Focus on students Conflicting expectations
Note: CIM = comprehensive intervention model; PCL = partnerships in comprehensive literacy.
participants often expressed their emotions in ways other than through specific utterances. That is, although they sometimes spoke about their emotions, using words such as mad and uncomfortable, they often cried or displayed other emotional responses (e.g., body language) during the observations and interviews. Thus, rather than coding for emotions, we began to think of emotions as an additional semiotic resource or discursive practice. This prompted us to analyze the participants small stories through a lens of emotions as understood through positioning theory. Positioning analysis of small stories. Much of the small story research has focused on just one story or individual (Barkhuizen, 2009; Georgakopoulou, 2008; Juzwik & Ives, 2010; Watson, 2007). In this study, we examined small stories from three different participants within the same community, hoping we could better understand how individuals within a professional group and context negotiated issues of power and identity in their work. Small stories were chosen from short sections of interview
62
transcripts that were coded multiple times according to the codes and themes described above. As Gubrium and Holstein (1997) argued, narratives need not be full-blown stories with requisite internal structures, but may be short accounts that emerge within or across turns at ordinary conversation, in interviews or interrogations, in public documents, or in organizational records (p. 146). Juzwik and Ives (2010) have argued that analysis of small stories allows researchers to explore the small-scale discursive and semiotic processes through which narratives are performed and interactionally negotiated (p. 38). To this end, one small story was chosen for each of the three primary participants based on these multiple codes, plus the saliency of their statements to the main themes. Each small story was then transcribed using detailed markings to represent the discourse as it unfolded at the time, that is, to understand the ecology of the unfolding discourse (Erickson, 2004) and achieve an emic representation of the participants discourse (Bloome et al., 2005). We did this by adapting transcript conventions from Green and Wallat (1981) and Bloome et al. (2005) to identify speaker turns, semantic aspects of participant and interviewer utterances, volume, changes in tone and pitch, stress, and other notable speech patterns. We also included additional context cues (e.g., gesture, whispering, sighs) in the right-hand column of the transcript (see the note to Appendix D for transcript conventions). Consistent with other micro-ethnographic approaches, we then separated utterances into message units, which Green and Wallat (1981) identify as the smallest conversational units of meaning. Next, we divided the small stories into interactional units, or stretches of conversationally tied message units (Green & Wallat, 1981, p. 200), using the context cues, changes in the speakers purposes within the interaction, topical shifts, and changes in the participatory demands of the interaction as guides. The purpose of this detailed transcription process was to enable ourselves as the researchers and our readers to attend to how the participants used language and emotions to express who they are, who they think other people are, how they position themselves and others, and how they define and negotiate power. This transcription process resulted in the small stories included in Appendices B to D. We conducted a three-level positioning analysis as recommended by Bamberg and Georgakopoulou (2008) on each of the small stories. The first-level analysis attends to what the story is about, who the characters are, and how they are positioned to one another. The second-level analysis focuses on what the narrator is trying to accomplish with the story through narrative strategies and interactional effects (Watson, 2007, p. 374). The third-level analysis attempts to connect the micro to the macro, the local to the global, by moving beyond the small story content and telling to consider the normative discourses (the broader ideological context) within which the characters agentively position themselves and by which they are positioned (Barkhuizen, 2009, p. 284). In other words, level 3 draws together the analysis to provide an answer to the question, Who am I vis--vis what society says I should be? (Watson, 2007, p. 374). Barkhuizen (2009) argued that an appropriate method for level three positioning analysis is to include other data which may have been collected during the course of any narrative project (p. 285) such as other small stories, interviews,
Hunt and Handsfield
63
and observations. Thus, we drew on the larger data set to support conclusions made from the small story analysis and to connect them to common discourses within the professional learning community. In this third-level analysis, we included additional interview and observation data in which the participants made similar identity claims as in their small stories. Finally, we included a vignette from a fourth coach, Yvette, taken from observational data, which included similar themes, and which serves to further contextualize the three small stories.
Trustworthiness and Member Checking

We used a variety of approaches to enhance the trustworthiness of our findings. First, we attempted to ground our coding and data analysis in the participants discourse and experiences to achieve an emic perspective to the extent possible regarding participants negotiations of identity and power (Bloome et al., 2005). Second, particularly given Carolyns previous work in the district and familiarity with the participants, and traditional power relationships between researchers and research participants, we paid attention during the three-level positioning analysis to how she discursively positioned herself and the participants (e.g., remarks made and questions asked during interviews, interactions during observations). We include and discuss such instances in our discussion of the findings when relevant. Finally, we conducted member checking in which Carolyn presented the transcripts of small stories and initial analyses to the participants and asked for their input concerning accuracy and relevancy.
Findings
The literacy coaches all expressed strong emotions both in their interview responses and during observations of professional development meetings. Thus, we paid attention to emotions in our analyses of the small stories and vignette that follow. We explored not just what emotions literacy coaches were expressing but how they used them to negotiate issues of identity, power, and positioning in their professional development. We understand emotions as socially co-constructed discursive acts that are intricately related to identities and are performative and productive (Denzin, 1984; Harr, 1986; Haviland-Jones & Kahlbaugh, 2000; Schutz & Zembylas, 2009; Zembylas, 2005b). Within this perspective, an emotion is more than just a mood or bodily response, but is a social action that indexes how we view ourselves, our place in the world, and how we want to be understood by others (Bamberg, 1997; Gunthner, 1997; Solomon, 1993). Emotions do not simply happen to people, but are performed, or enacted, as people do emotions (Zembylas, 2005b, p. 211). In this sense, emotional performances cannot be separated from identity performances (Cross & Hong, 2009; Haviland-Jones & Kahlbaugh, 2000; Meyer, 2009; Zembylas, 2005b). Emotions can also serve as a means for positioning ourselves and others within a moral order (Parrot, 2003). Certain emotional displays are more accepted than others within particular social contexts, which leads to the development of emotional rules
64
(Zembylas, 2005a) that attempt to govern and limit the power of emotional expressions. However, these rules may be resisted because emotions can be used as discursive tactics for negotiating and resisting social demands (Zembylas, 2005a). This discursive use of emotions to position others and ones self within a moral order is not necessarily intentional but is the result of in-the-moment interactions between the self and others (Davies & Harr, 1990; Erickson, 2004). The following stories illustrate how the literacy coaches in this study used emotions along with other discursive tactics to negotiate identity, power, and positioning within the dominant discourses of the local professional learning community. In these stories, we hear the coaches attempting to strike a balance between demonstrating knowledge and expertise and supporting teachers through collaborative, trusting relationships. They felt pressured to prove to themselves, fellow coaches, teachers, and administration that they were experts in literacy theory and best practices. They felt additional pressure to meet unclear and varied expectations and to complete their assignments for university credit. They expressed difficulty with identifying their own successes and failures in relation both to their ongoing professional development and to their work with teachers in schools. This emphasis on knowledge and expertise often seemed to be at odds with the coaches goals of collaborating with teachers in a supportive, nonthreatening manner, and they frequently spoke of obstacles and resistance to coaching alongside teachers in the classroom.
Sandys Small Story: Thats Not Me

Sandys small story was elicited during the first few minutes of her first interview, which occurred after school in late March. She constructed her story in response to Carolyns prompt, Tell me about your experiences this year with the training and how thats going for you. She briefly discussed all of the tasks that her job encompasses and how her job had changed to focus more on relationships and adult learning. She also mentioned how the literacy coaches were developing relationships with each other and how they buddied up with each other. Carolyn asked her how the changes affected her personally and if developing relationships with other coaches had made her job easier. She responded, as illustrated in the following small story, by explaining some of the challenges of the training. Sandys small story followed a problem/solution narrative structure (see Appendix B). In Interactional Unit (IU) 1, she set the story within a really hard year of training with the group of literacy coaches. In IU 2a and 2b, she identified the problem of competitiveness in the context of the lab classroom. In IU 3a and 3b, she offered the solution to the problem as a more supportive lab classroom and strengthened relationships. In IU 4, she attributed the strengthening of the relationships to spending more time together and to professional development provided by consultants from outside the district. In IU 5, Sandy expanded on the problem of competitiveness by complicating the role of expert. She argued that relationships have improved as a result of a move away from that role. However, she hedged in Lines
Hunt and Handsfield
65
81 to 91 as she argued both for and against the expert role. Finally, in IU 6, she closed her story by reiterating her proposed solution to the problem, which focused on the collaborative and agentive nature of the group. Sandy expressed discomfort with what she saw as a competitive push to demonstrate expert knowledge. She described the lab classroom as showy in Line 17. When Carolyn prompted her to explain what she meant, she said that it was just more competitive (Line 39) and the way to see, you know, who could show us something first and better (Lines 45-48). She seemed to be conflicted about the appropriateness of this expert role. She stated, We dont have to be experts (Line 72) but hedged with Were always wanting to learn (Line 83). She concluded, We dont have to have all the answers (Line 86), but We need to be experts in some things, but not everything (Lines 89-91). She skillfully negotiated her position by aligning herself with the goals of the training while still resisting the expert role. She used a variety of tactics to resist the position of expert and to construct an identity as a collaborative group member. For example, several of her discursive moves served to build consensus and avoid conflict. She frequently used the discourse marker you know. Sometimes she used this phrase to build consensus with Carolyn as the interviewer and to refer to our common background knowledge as in Lines 4, 22, 53, and 63. Other times she used you know to soften the force of her statements. For instance, in Lines 42 to 48 she used the phrase three times during the most directly critical statement about the competiveness between coaches. She used the word just in similar ways when elaborating on the problem of the lab classroom as just more competitive (Line 39). Changes in intonation and pace were also used when elaborating on the problem in Lines 15 and 48. She also tactically aligned herself with the group of literacy coaches. She frequently used the pronoun we to attribute positive actions to the group, as in Weve backed off (Line 20) and Weve strengthened relationships (Line 51). Competitive action, however, was attributed to the lab classroom. In Line 17, it was the lab classroom that was getting to where it was showy (Line 17) rather than the other coaches. Sandy could have positioned her fellow coaches against her as competitors, but instead she aligned herself with the group in opposition to the faceless institution of the lab classroom. She further resisted the position of expert by calling on other voices to support her claims. By using the we voice, she was able to present her opinions as a shared vision among the coaches rather than as her individual viewpoint. In Lines 41 and 42, she did acknowledge that she was stating her own opinion saying, and not everybody, but I mean the feelings that I was getting . . ., but then she returned to the collective voice for most of the remainder of the story. Sandy also called on the voices of outside consultants (Lines 61-61) who supported her ideas about the importance of strengthening those relationships (Line 56) and spending more time together (Line 58). She successfully negotiated for power because many voices can be more powerful than one. Sandy talked about her frustration with competitive pressure at other points as well. In the second interview, she recounted an episode that occurred in the lab classroom in which somebody made a comment about a PowerPoint that she presented. She said,
66
There was a comment. I dont know who it came from or what, but maybe I misunderstood. But the way I took it was that I was just kinda being showy by doing this? She whispered, And thats not me. She then added, and I was upset at that. Her expression of the emotion upset positioned the lab classroom as a disruptive space that challenges her identity as a collaborator. She felt forced into the position of expert within the context of the literacy coach training. As we illustrate in the next two small stories, Isabella and Bree articulated similar tensions.
Isabellas Small Story: I Felt Set Up to Fail

Like Sandys, Isabellas small story was told during her first interview, which was conducted in mid-March directly after Carolyn observed her working alongside a teacher in a second grade classroom. She shared her story in answer to the question, Have you had a conflict with a colleague this year? She responded to this question briefly in vague and general terms. Thus, Carolyn prompted her to Think of a specific moment in time when you had a conflict with this person and share what was the situation, what did you say, and how that was worked out. Isabella subsequently told a small story (see Appendix C) about her interactions with a colleague during a school improvement meeting conducted in a shared space at her school. In IU 1, she explained that when she shared new learning or information (Line 4), she felt like her colleague challenged her. In IU 2, she elaborated on the problem and shared that she felt like she was being set up to fail in front of others (Line 13). In IU 3, at Carolyns prompting (How did that make you feel? Line 28), she shared her feelings about being challenged in the meeting. Throughout her story, Isabella expressed a difficulty with enacting the identity of an expert leader. She made attempts to take up the expert position by aligning herself with a discourse of expert knowledge. For example, in Line 15, she referred to that knowledge as something she needed to prove that she possessed. In Line 17, she added that she needed to show that she knew what she was talking about. Despite some attempts to enact an expert identity, she seemed to be more comfortable positioning herself as someone who shared new learning or information (Line 4) rather than someone who demonstrated expert knowledge. She resisted the position of expert in several ways. First, she presented herself as passive and with little power to assert her identity. She began by setting up the problem passively. Instead of saying I was challenged, she stated, It was almost challenged. With this passive construction, she positioned the knowledge as the object of the challenge and avoided identifying the challenger. Furthermore, she communicated a lack of confidence in her own expertise. For instance, she positioned herself as insecure with her questioning intonation in her statement, I really had that knowledge? (Line 15). She also stated that she felt like she was being set up to fail (Lines 17 and 22), which indicates a belief that she cannot successfully defend herself against the challenges of her colleague. This passive stance works as a tactic because it allows her to resist the expert role and attribute it to the social context.
Hunt and Handsfield
67
She also resisted the expert role by repositioning herself as a learner. In Line 36, she stated, This is a learning year and emphasized the phrase with a rising pitch and intonation. With this statement she repositioned herself as a learner who does not have to know it like the back of my hand (Line 37). Finally, she concluded with It made me feel like just keeping my mouth shut (Line 42). This statement seems to position her as silenced. However, it could also be interpreted as an act of resistance against the challenge to demonstrate knowledge and expertise. She has decided that she will not participate in the discussion if she is forced into a position where she must prove what she knows, instead of collaboratively learning with her colleagues. These conflicting identities and positions were very difficult for Isabella. In response to Carolyns question, How did that make you feel in the moment? (Line 28), she expressed strong, embodied emotions. She said that it made her feel sick to my stomach (Line 30) and like crying (Line 41). Other words she used to describe her reactions to the situation were uncomfortable, insecure, and mad. These emotional expressions indicate disapproval of a space in which a literacy coach is expected to prove her knowledge to others.
Brees Small Story: Its Hard to Find My Successes

Brees small story was told during her first interview, which was conducted in early April directly after Carolyn observed her coteaching a guided reading group in a first grade classroom. Brees small story was nested within a discussion of her administrators expectations of her as a coach and her confusion about what tasks she should be performing. Brees small story focused on the role confusion that she experienced as a new literacy coach (see Appendix D). In IU 1, Bree set up the story by explaining that the boundaries of her position have changed from focusing only on literacy to including other components, such as math, content areas, and student behavior. In IU 2, she defined the problem as not understanding how she fits into those shifting boundaries. In IU 3a, 3b, and 3c, she elaborated on the problem and explained that it is difficult to know what her roles and responsibilities are because they have not been clearly outlined. In IU 4a and 4b, she explained what tasks she has performed as a literacy coach in comparison to her administrators and colleagues. In IU 5, she expressed frustration by stating, You cant make anybody happy. Bree frequently used spatial phrases and metaphors to illustrate the problem of role confusion. For example, in Line 1 she positioned herself within an undefined space saying, I dont know where those boundaries are. In Line 16, she said that she is not the person who is going to come in and solve everything. The phrase come in suggests a space that is not her own, most likely the school or the classroom. Moreover, she repeatedly stated that nowhere are the roles and responsibilities outlined (Lines 25, 30, 49). She appears to be requesting a sort of map for navigating the institutional spaces in the district as related to the shifting boundaries of her work.
68
Although she expressed a desire for clearer expectations, she never indicated who she believes is supposed to outline the roles and responsibilities of the coaches. In Line 13, she stated that shes not supposed to be the problem solver of everything. She also stated that she kept an Excel sheet of student data but wasnt told to do that. In Lines 64 to 66, she spoke about how You have different expectations from different people telling you different things. Who does she imagine should tell her what she is supposed to do? Who are the different people with different expectations? Who sets the boundaries which she referred to in Line 1? Bree seems to have an unclear understanding of who has the power to determine how she should perform her job as literacy coach. In de Certeaus terms, this invisibility (this nowhere, to use Brees term) of the social agent can be thought of as strategically constructed by institutional powers to reduce resistance. Of importance, however, Bree also seems to be tactically using the invisibility of the social agent to position herself as a faithful employee who would follow orders if there were a definite agent of power. Throughout this story, she questioned her position, wondering where she fits into the organization. She questioned her identity, wondering if she is a successful, valuable, and responsible person. She questioned power, wondering who defines her responsibilities and how her job performance will be evaluated. In response to this uncertainty, Bree asserted an identity as a successful professional. She used the word responsible several times and listed the tasks that she performed. She seemed to want to show that she was doing a good job. This desire was also evidenced in her frequent use of the phrase finding my successes, a phrase she also used in other interviews and in observations of professional development meetings. She explained that she knew how to tell if she was being successful as a classroom teacher but was now unsure of how to evaluate her performance. She developed this idea further when she and a partner led a professional development activity. She passed out a bright red paper with the word Success! written in a playful black font across the top and instructions to make a list of successes that you have had or that you are moving towards. As she passed out the materials for the activity she explained to her fellow coaches, It was very noticeable that everyones had a really rough year and that she wanted to give them a chance to look at successes. Bree also responded to uncertainty with a sense of frustration and hopelessness. She explicitly expressed frustration about unclear expectations in Lines 61 to 66, and frustration was apparent in her tone of voice as well. She further expressed frustration in her final comment, You cant make anybody happy. Her laughter that accompanied this comment indicated a level of exasperation. With this sentiment, she judged her work situation as unfair and performed the agentive act of asserting that it is not her fault if she does not live up to everybodys expectations. In the next section we present a vignette, as documented in Carolyns field notes. This vignette further illuminates how participants responded emotionally to different expectations during one of the professional development sessions.
Hunt and Handsfield
69
A Vignette Featuring Yvette: We Have Masterful Personalities

Carolyn attended a Friday morning lab classroom meeting in early April. At this meeting, the literacy coaches were asked to focus on increasing discussion among students during literature circles. A second grade teacher came to the meeting and discussed her experiences with literature circles in her classroom and then brought in a small group of students to demonstrate their discussion around a Bailey School Kids book. Then the coaches broke into groups to go into classrooms and observe small group literature discussions occurring throughout the school. After the observations, they reconvened to discuss what they observed and how they might use what they had learned in their own schools. This discussion led to a conversation about how to gain access to teachers in the classroom and about building trusting relationships with teachers. One of the district literacy coaches asked, As a coach, how do we find our place for next steps? In response, some of the coaches began to share their frustrations with trying to coach in classrooms and with unclear expectations. Yvette added that it has been very difficult for her to build relationships with teachers. She began to cry as she expressed feeling defeated in developing an understanding of teachers and their practice. She explained that as a teacher she understood what it meant to know a student in her own classroom, but she was less sure of what it meant to know a student in someone elses classroom or what it meant to really know a teacher. As she spoke, several of the other coaches eyes filled with tears as they nodded in agreement, and some shared their own stories of frustration. Next, Yvette explained that she was upset because the expectation level had risen to a very stressful level because of recent assignments for the professional development. She was referring to an assignment that required the coaches to make a presentation documenting their year of training to share at a spotlight celebration attended by principals and district administrators. Her fellow coaches agreed that they were stressed about the assignment. The district literacy coach tried to ease their concerns by stating, Its dangerous when we start to compare ourselves to each other, and added that the presentation was meant to be an end of the year celebration to share your story and your vision in the building and not something to put you over the edge. The coaches, however, were still unhappy and continued to question both the purpose of the assignment and the requirements of the presentation. Yvette spoke up again through her tears and expressed that she was not at all pleased with this year. She argued that she didnt feel like she had much to celebrate or many successes to share with the administration. She asked if there was another way that we could do this. She explained that as a classroom teacher she had been comfortable demonstrating success because she knew what that looked like. She added, We have masterful personalities, but we havent been able to master anything this year. The coaches continued to discuss the assignment, but were unable to come to a resolution. The meeting ran over by 15 minutes, but the coaches insisted that they wanted to work this out. The district literacy coach called the meeting to an end and promised
70
to continue the discussion at the next meeting. A feeling of tension hung in the air as people quickly gathered their things and exited the room with little conversation. The second interviews occurred after this meeting. During these interviews, both Isabella and Sandy apologized to Carolyn for the emotionality of the meeting, and all three coaches insisted that it was an unusual occurrence. For instance, Sandy said, I kept thinking, oh my goodness, I dont know if you think this has been going on all year but absolutely not. One of the district literacy coaches also sent an email to Carolyn apologizing for the way the meeting went. There was a very clear message that emotional expressions were not an acceptable norm for the professional development meetings.
Discussion Conflicting Discourses

Each of the participants in this study expressed and negotiated her professional identities in unique ways, but they were similarly limited by the common discourses within the professional learning community. In the small stories presented above, Sandy, Isabella, and Yvette all spoke of building supportive relationships with teachers and other coaches. Within the larger data set, Bree spoke of the importance of supportive relationships as well. They expressed a desire to work collaboratively, to share their learning, to build trust, and to know teachers well. This discourse of building supportive, trusting relationships was commonly voiced during the literacy coach training. There was frequent discussion about how coaches are not supposed to be evaluators or experts but are meant to support teachers. In some ways, this discourse aligned with their desire to collaborate with their colleagues. However, this discourse also seemed to place pressure on the coaches to live up to the supportive role despite institutional and relational barriers. The discourse of demonstrating expert knowledge was just as prevalent within the literacy coach training, but it was a discourse that remained largely unspoken. Despite frequent assertions within the professional development sessions that coaches are not experts, these four literacy coaches all felt pressured to present themselves as knowledgeable and competent. Britzman (2003) explained this pressure and how the discourse of teacher as expert works to reduce knowledge to an immediate problem of knowing the answers (p. 228). Although her argument focused on student teachers, it is applicable to the literacy coaches in training because they also experienced a doubling of identity in which they were being educated and educating others simultaneously. She argued, The construct of the teacher as expert also tends to produce the image of the teacher as an autonomous and unitary individual and as the source of knowledge. From this standpoint, teachers seem to have learned everything and consequently have nothing to learn. (Britzman, 2003, p. 229)
Hunt and Handsfield
71
The coaches in this study faced a similar dilemma, as they felt pressured to demonstrate knowledge and expertise while simultaneously developing collaborative partnerships with the teachers in their schools and attempting to position themselves as colearners. The literacy coaches responded to this pressure in different ways. Sandy worked hard to reposition herself within the supportive, collaborative relationships discourse. Isabella, Bree, and Yvette all tried to position themselves as experts but felt unable to do so because of local contexts and unclear expectations.
Emotional Landscapes
The literacy coaches often used emotional expression to respond to the two conflicting discourses of building supportive, trusting relationships and demonstrating expert knowledge. Specifically, they expressed frustration and defeat as they attempted to align themselves with both discourses. Through their emotional expressions, the coaches positioned themselves in relation to the moral order of the coach training. Sandy and Isabella expressed a resistance to spaces that positioned them as responsible for proving their expertise. Bree and Yvette used their emotions to position expectations as unreasonable and unclear. Their small stories were filled with references to institutional space. For example, Sandy described the lab classroom as an emotional space that upset her established identity as a collaborator. In Isabellas story, the school improvement meeting was an emotional space in which her standing as an expert was challenged in front of others. For Bree, the institutional spaces were hard to navigate, and she felt lost without an appropriate outline or map to help her find her way to success. Yvette felt defeated because she found it difficult to gain access to teachers classroom space. In these stories, we see the literacy coaches navigating through the emotional geographies (Hargreaves, 2000) of literacy coaching. Hargreaves (2000) defined emotional geographies as consisting of the spatial and experiential patterns of closeness and/or distance in human interactions and relationships that help create, configure and color the feelings and emotions we experience about ourselves, our world and each other (p. 1061). He argued that teachers work is deeply affected by their relationships with colleagues and students within the cultural, moral, professional, physical, and political spaces of schools. In Hargreavess work, these spaces are largely viewed as an inert backdrop to teachers relationships and emotional labor. Thus, to further explore how both physical and ideological spaces shape and are shaped by the literacy coaches enactments of emotions, we refer to them as emotional landscapes. The notion of landscapes emphasizes the social production of space and the interactions between people and spaces that result in changes to the environment. Within these emotional landscapes, the literacy coaches were positioned by the institutional spaces through which they moved (i.e., the lab classroom, the professional development meeting, the school improvement meeting) as well as by their relationships and by the conflicting discourses of the training. However, they also acted on these spaces and worked to reshape them to their benefit through discursive negotiations and
72
micro tactics. They did not simply succumb to the pressure to be an expert but reasserted their identities as collaborative learners and responsible professionals.
Framings as Storied Spaces

In previous research, the two themes we identified in our analyses may have been seen as two distinct roles: collaborator and expert. Typically, the solution to the problem of role confusion has been to define the roles. However, it is clear from these stories that it is not as simple as defining what a collaborator or an expert is or documenting which role a coach should perform in a job description. Sandy, Isabella, Bree, and Yvette seemed to understand what a collaborator is and what an expert is, and they were aware that they were expected to be both at the same time. Given their expressed frustration with these conflicting discourses, it is easy to understand why Bree desired an outline or map to help her navigate the emotional landscapes of literacy coaching. We argue, however, that lists of roles and effective coaching strategies are not effective maps. Rather, coaches need maps that acknowledge that there are many ways of reaching a destination. When thinking about mapping out the work of literacy coaches, it is helpful to consider de Certeaus (1984) spatial conceptions of map production. Prior to the Enlightenment, maps included depictions and references to the experiences of those documenting their journey (de Certeau, 1984; Reynolds & Fitzpatrick, 1999). Travelers logged their journeys by marking out their footprints and drawing in pictorial representations of ships, monsters, and other encounters along the way. However, the practices, experiences, and emotions of the travelers have been erased from modern maps. As such, maps become misrecognized as autonomous representations that obscure the experiences and processes through which they were generated. Roles and job descriptions can be viewed as similar to modern maps. They do not take into account the storied spaces of literacy coaches emotional landscapes. As such, they leave out the on-the-ground, narrative experiences of the journey of literacy coaching. On the other hand, the coaches tactical, discursive negotiations of identity, power, and positioning allow for the spatialization of literacy coaching. This spatialization allows literacy coaches to navigate more freely across institutional spaces in ways that promote fluidity and transformative possibilities for their work and their professional identities.
Implications and Conclusions

This study has several practical implications for literacy coaching. First, roles can and should be outlined, but that is not enough to ensure successful coaching and retention of coaches. A more nuanced concept of role as a type of social positioning has the potential to help coaches navigate the complex nexuses of identity and power that are an essential part of their work. We believe that literacy coaching should be
Hunt and Handsfield
73
viewed as more than a series of tasks to be completed and roles to be fulfilled. Rather, coaching requires complex negotiations of current understandings of the purposes of institutional spaces, the meanings of professional development, and the nature of teacher learning. It requires literacy coaches and teachers to work together to establish the possibilities and limits of coaching within local contexts. This implication aligns with other research, which argues for the differentiation of coaching depending on teachers individual needs and specific school contexts (Collet, 2012; Matsumura et al., 2010; Stover, Kissel, Haag, & Shoniker, 2011). Future research may benefit from a reconceptualization of role as just one of the ways in which literacy coaches are positioned. This reconceptualization could open up a broader vision of literacy coaching. As part of this reconceptualization, training and support for coaches must include ample opportunity for exploring the emotional aspects and challenges of their work. The literacy coaches in this study were given the opportunity to meet for hours each week with their colleagues to discuss coaching and intervention strategies and literacy theory, but there was little attention given to the emotional aspects of coaching. Carving out space for this emotional work is important because emotions help us to communicate who we are in relation to others and the social order, and to underpin, energize, and sustain the narratives we tell (Bullough, 2009, p. 43). As Zembylas (2002) reminds us, Emotion work in teaching aids in negotiating meanings about roles and relations rather than in conforming to predetermined norms (p. 197). We argue that emotions can assist literacy coaches in negotiating and defining their roles in partnership with teachers and administrators in ways that speak to their specific local contexts and relationships. Furthermore, literacy coaching training needs to openly acknowledge positioning, power, and identity and give coaches opportunities to grapple with these issues. It is not sufficient to provide literacy coaches with a tool kit of best practices, which assumes that knowledge is absolute and simply transmitted from coaches to teachers. As Britzman (2003) argued, professional development within an authoritative, expert discourse fails to show how the uncertain can open up pedagogic opportunities and makes no room for the complications we live (p. 223). There are many possibilities for opening up professional development spaces for literacy coaches that enable discursive negotiations. For instance, researchers have suggested specific activities to prepare and support coaches, including using roleplaying scenarios, analyzing audio and video of teachers and coaches at work, and working through case studies and vignettes of coach interactions (Ippolito, 2010; Rainville & Jones, 2009). Literacy coaches may also benefit from opportunities to document and analyze their own small stories. Such analysis has the potential to provide literacy coaches with opportunities to reposition themselves and to speak back to dominant discourses. As Harr and Gillett (1994) point out, To act with freedom, the discursive possibilities that are potentially available to an individual must be affirmed, owned, and used
74
in some practice (p. 127). Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain (1998), drawing on the work of Bakhtin, refer to such contexts as the space of authoring (p. 272), in which differing identifications can be counterposed, brought to work against one another, to create a position, our own voice, from which to work (p. 211). Professional development that directly addresses issues of identity, power, and positioning may provide sites of resistance (Zembylas, 2003, p. 110) from which literacy coaches can resist dominant discourses in ways that leverage positive change in their schools. Further research that builds on scholarship regarding teacher emotion is needed to more closely consider how emotions affect the work of literacy coaches. Research in literacy coaching needs to move beyond traditional Western dichotomies between reason and emotion, private and public, and mind and body (Zembylas, 2005b) to consider alternative ways of knowing and interpreting the world. Given the emotional labor involved in literacy coaching, it is important to consider coaches emotional participation and artful engagement (Luttrell, 2003) with their work. If researchers neglect literacy coaches multiple ways of knowing, they may overlook crucial elements of what literacy coaches need to be successful and effective. As Luttrell (2003) argued with respect to ethnographic knowing, if researchers disengage when participants express emotion, the knowing is less full than it could be (p. 163). The work of literacy coaches is deeply affected by the particulars of the local context, which can create limitations for analyzing such work. The experiences of new literacy coaches may differ considerably depending on a variety of factors such as previous experiences, existing relationships, and the timing of their training. The coaches in this study had a variety of previous experiences and existing relationships, and they were receiving training while working as literacy coaches. Literacy coaches in other contexts may relate differently to issues of identity, power, and positioning. However, our purpose is not to generalize these findings to all literacy coaches or their professional development experiences. Likewise, we do not intend to catalog the specific identities that literacy coaches might have or to identify a set of preferred tactics for negotiating coaches work. Rather, our intent is to highlight the political and emotional nature of their job, which requires crossing established institutional boundaries to leverage change. Further research may explore how literacy coaches tactical negotiations differ from district to district, school to school, and teacher to teacher. Despite the challenges uncovered in this study, literacy coaching remains a hopeful endeavor. It holds great potential for engaging teachers in professional development in more meaningful ways, improving classroom instruction, and positively affecting student learning. Therefore, it is important to continue to explore ways to support literacy coaches so that they can be successful advocates for change in their schools. As Sandy shared, Were at the forefront of things, and its exciting, and we make it what we can and what we believe in. And thats the part thats dear in my heart.
Hunt and Handsfield
75
Appendix A Interview Questions

1. Describe a successful interaction that you have had with a teacher, student, and/or administrator this year. 2. How would you describe your relationships with the teachers at your school? 3. How would you describe your relationships with the administrators at your school? 4. What tasks do you perform as a literacy coach? Which tasks do you find the most and least rewarding either in terms of personal satisfaction or in terms of improving teacher and student learning? 5. What has been the most beneficial aspect of your literacy coach training? Describe a specific activity that has helped you to improve your practice. 6. Have you had a conflict with a colleague this year? If so, please explain the situation and how it was resolved. 7. What is the most challenging aspect of your new role as a literacy coach? What is easiest for you? 8. Do you have anything else that you would like to share about your experiences with literacy coaching?
Appendix B
Time Interactional Unit 1 3:31 Interactional Unit 2a Line 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 Speaker Sandy Carolyn Sandy Message units Its been hard | Its been a re:ally hard year hmm.mmm You know| Just |all the expectations from the university hmm.mmm Plus, um, you know doing your job hmm.mmm Um | but I think with the group its its made it um | easier Um | Some| back to the | the lab classroom um ||| * How do I wanna say this * There | there for a while Brief sigh after pause Long, deep sigh after pause Whispered Contextual cues
Carolyn Sandy Carolyn Sandy
(continued)
76
Appendix B (continued)
Time Interactional Unit 3a Interactional Unit 2b Interactional Unit 3b Interactional Unit 4 Line 017 018 019 020 021 022 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 Carolyn Carolyn Sandy Carolyn Sandy Speaker Message units it was kind of getting to where it was showy you know hmm.mmm I | I think weve backed off from that | more so um you know when we split up by primary and every | everything where there its more supportive. What do you mean by showy Um ||| Its kind of a strong word Um ||| Just more competitive And not theyre ||| And not everybody but I mean the feelings that I was getting where you know it was | it was you know like the way to see you know who could show us something *first and better* and hmm.mmm But |I think | you know Now that weve strengthened our relationships that its | its more of a supportive You know |um | group What do you think went into strengthening those relationships Hmmmm ||| Spending more time together hmm.mmm Um ||| The consultants | Change to faster pace and lilting tone Contextual cues
Carolyn Sandy
Sandy Carolyn Sandy
(continued)
Hunt and Handsfield
77
Appendix B (continued)
Time Interactional Unit 5 Interactional Unit 6 5:40 Line 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 Carolyn Sandy Speaker Message units From New York came in And, um, you know We had professional development days With them And, and they really stressed You know That And I think Just the understanding that You know We dont have to be experts hmm.mmm You know | As coaches Um | and I think Once that some of the coaches understood that Things were better hmm.mmm So ||| You know Were always wanting to learn and | and everything But I mean, um Just realizing That we dont have to have all the answers. hmm.mmm You know We | we need to be experts In | in some things But not everything | right And we can Lean on each other You know All of have some things You know To bring| And share | And build so Contextual cues
Carolyn Sandy
Carolyn Sandy
Carolyn Sandy
78
Appendix C
Time Line Speaker Message units Okay, well I | I think that in, just in general a few times through, um | meetings where I have shared new learning or information that I had learned and it was very much a *not a very nice tone of voice* but it was almost *challenged* | Uh-huh Like | *well what do you mean by that* Or why is that Hmm.mmm and it was definitely challenging me in front of others to defend myself or | to prove that I really had that knowledge or that I knew what I was talking about or doing so I almost felt like it was kind of a set up like | you know *oh | you think* you know that I was being | um ||| I dont know *how else to say it* but just being | just being set up to fail | you know And You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk and go ahead and prove it and well | well show people. And how did that make you feel in the moment| When she did that Sick to my stomach It made me feel very uncomfortable Hmm.mmm um | and | and mad | you know a little bit mad and it made me feel a little bit insecure because Hmm.mmm *this is a learning year* and do I know it like the back of my hand Contextual cues *Rising in pitch and intonation* *Lower pitch* *Mimicking voice of colleague* *Mimicking voice of colleague* *Rising in pitch* Laughter after this statement *Rising in pitch and intonation* Interactional Unit 1 29:30 001 Isabella 002 003 004 005 006 Isabella 007 008 009 Carolyn Interactional Unit 2 29:49 010 Isabella 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 Carolyn Isabella
020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 Interactional Unit 3 30:20 028 Carolyn 029 030 Isabella 031 032 033 034 035 036 037
Carolyn Isabella Carolyn Isabella
(continued)
Hunt and Handsfield
79
Appendix C (continued)
Time 30:46 Line 038 039 040 041 042 Speaker Message units No | | I dont know it you know | so | um, yeah I mean, It made me feel | all of those things And |and it made me feel like crying and it made me feel like just keeping my mouth shut Contextual cues
Appendix D
Approximate time Interactional Unit 1 12:00 Interactional Unit 2 Interactional Unit 3a Line 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 Bree Bree Speaker Bree Message units I dont know where those boundaries are Um | they | you know | literacy coach and now literacy is math and content area and reading and writing and all of that and so how does | behavior play into this job role you know in team meetings its not just literacy we do talk about behavior things so how much of it is my job to take on| being the problem solver of everything Not | Not that Im supposed to be the problem solver Um because Im not Im not the person whos gonna you know come in and solve everything but how much am I | the go to person for figuring for finding those connections You know | I just and I think thats probably the bi:ggest problem weve had um is | is throughout weve all complained about it Is that n:owhere | are the roles and responsibilities for this position outlined you know this is the first year everybodys being trained Contextual cues
(continued)
80
Appendix D (continued)
Approximate time Line 029 030 031 032 Speaker Message units as this literacy coach um and nowhere is it written down or has it been discussed about this is what the, you know, the instructor of support and learning is responsible for Bree You know, um, I know that Im | I put up the data wall so the teachers are responsible for doing the assessment and moving the cards and I change the criteria at the top as the semesters change um I know that I am keeping um an excel sheet for all the | all the data of the students but I wasnt told to do that Im just doing that for my own purposes because I know that I may have to put together a building report and I have other assignments and things that I have to do but as far somebody outlining saying you are responsible for da.da.da.da. and as a coach you should be doing da.da. da.da. You know | that has never been outlined And | um | when you talk to different coaches there are some coaches who are facilitating team meetings and contacting um our psychologists and counselors and stuff to get their information and things that I have not done that here Um | our principal pretty much leads our team meetings and she makes those | contacts ||| you know | whether that changes over time as | you know |as Im more seasoned I dont | I dont know But its | thats the frustrating part Contextual cues
Interactional Unit 4a
033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043
044 045 Interactional Unit 3b 046 047 048 049 Interactional Unit 4b 050 051 Interactional Unit 3c 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061
Bree
Bree
(continued)
Hunt and Handsfield
81
Appendix D (continued)
Approximate time Interactional Unit 5 14:45 Line 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 Bree Speaker Message units is that you have nowhere is it outlined and you have different expectations from different people telling you | different things And its like how do we *you cant make anybody happy* Contextual cues Laughing as she says this
Transcription key: | = one second pause; = lowering or rising intonation; underline = emphasis; : = extended vowel; *phrase* = change in pitch or intonation, described in contextual cues column.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. Although we recognize and prefer the term professional development, the participants in our study used the term training to refer to their literacy coaching development activities. We use both terms interchangeably in this article.
References
Bamberg, M. (1997). Language, concepts, and emotions: The role of language in the construction of emotions. Language Sciences, 19(4), 309-340. Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 47, 366-369. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377-396. Barkhuizen, G. (2009). An extended positioning analysis of a pre-service teachers better life small story. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 282-300. Bean, R. M., Draper, J. A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87-114. Bean, R. M., Swan, A. L., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. Reading Teacher, 56(5), 446-455.
82
Blachowicz, C., Buhle, R., Ogle, D., Frost, S., Correa, A., & Kinner, J. D. (2010). Hit the ground running: Ten ideas for supporting and preparing urban literacy coaches. Reading Teacher, 63(5), 348-359. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Botzakis, S. (2008). Ive gotten a lot out of reading comics: Poaching and lifelong literacy. In Y. Kim, V. J. Risko, D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, & R. T. Jimnez, et al. (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 119-129). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369-394). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Buell, M., Han, M., Blamey, K. L., & Vukelich, C. (2010). Facilitating change: Roles of the early childhood literacy coach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 4(2), 29-56. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2009). Seeking eudaimonia: The emotions in learning to teach and to mentor. In P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 33-53). New York, NY: Springer. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge. Chval, K. B., Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J. K., van Garderen, D., Cummings, L., Estapa, A. T., & Huey, M. E. (2010). The transition from experienced teacher to mathematics coach: Establishing a new identity. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 191-216. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5-30. Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47. Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Crafton, L., & Kaiser, E. (2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104-116. Cross, D. I., & Hong, J. Y. (2009). Beliefs and professional identity: Critical constructs in examining the impact of reform on the emotional experiences of teachers. In P. A. Sdhutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 273-296). New York, NY: Springer. Davies, B., & Harr, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 44-63. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Denzin, N. K. (1984). On understanding emotion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Dole, J. A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. Reading Teacher, 57(5), 462-471.
Hunt and Handsfield
83
Dole, J. A., Liang, L. A., Watkins, N. M., & Wiggins, C. M. (2006). The state of reading professionals in the United States. Reading Teacher, 60(2), 194-199. Duessen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). Coach can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. Issues & answers (REL 2007-No. 005). Portland, OR: Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity. Ferguson, K. (2011). Examining the relationship of power and resistance in literacy coaching in three school contexts. In P. J. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullterton, P. M. Stecker, V. R. Gillis, & C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 165-178). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association. Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 99-125). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). On MSN with buff boys: Self- and other-identity claims in the context of small stories. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(5), 597-626. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Green, J., & Wallat, C. (Eds.). (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gunthner, S. (1997). The contextualization of affect in reported dialogues. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation (pp. 247-275). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Handsfield, L. J., Crumpler, T. P., & Dean, T. R. (2010). Tactical negotiations and creative adaptations: The discursive production of literacy curriculum and teacher identities across space-times. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 405-431. Hargreaves, S. (2000). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056-1080. Harr, R. (1986). The social construction of emotions. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Harr, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harr, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hartnett, S. (1998). Michel de Certeaus critical historiography and the rhetoric of maps. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 31(4), 283-302. Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Kahlbaugh, P. (2000). Emotion and identity. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 293-305). New York, NY: Guilford. Herron-Hruby, A., Hagood, M. C., & Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Switching places and looking to adolescents for the practices that shape school literacies. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(3), 311-334.
84
Hibbert, K. M., Heydon, R. M., & Rich, S. J. (2008). Beacons of light, rays, or sun catchers? A case study of the positioning of literacy teachers and their knowledge in neoliberal times. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 303-315. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. International Reading Association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author. Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164-190. Juzwik, M. M., & Ives, D. (2010). Small stories as resources for performing teacher identity: Identity-in-interaction in an urban language arts classroom. Narrative Inquiry, 20(1), 37-61. Larson, J., & Gatto, L. A. (2004). Tactical underlife: Understanding students perceptions. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 11-41. doi:10.1177/1468798404041454 Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Luttrell, W. (2003). Pregnant bodies, fertile minds. New York, NY: Routledge. Lynch, J., & Ferguson, K. (2010). Reflections of elementary school literacy coaches on practice: Roles and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 199-277. Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: How district context influences school reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 759-792. Matsumura, L. K., Garnier, H. E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., & Bickel, D. D. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of a comprehensive literacy coaching program in schools with high teacher mobility. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35-62. McLean, C. A., Mallozzi, C. A., Hu, R., & Dailey, L. B. (2010). Literacy coaching and Reading First redelivery: A discourse analysis. Teacher Development, 14(2), 253-268. McVee, M. B. (2011). Positioning theory and sociocultural perspectives: Affordances for educational researchers. In M. B. McVee, C. H. Brock, & J. A. Glazier (Eds.), Sociocultural positioning in literacy: Exploring culture, discourse, narrative, and power in diverse educational contexts (pp. 1-21). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, D. K. (2009). Entering the emotional practices of teaching. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 73-91.). New York, NY: Springer. Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437. Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Watson, P. (2008). Perceptions and expectations of roles and responsibilities of literacy coaching. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(3), 141-157. Otaiba, S. A., Hosp, J. L., Smartt, S., & Dole, J. A. (2008). The challenging role of a reading coach: A cautionary tale. Educational and Psychology Consultation, 18, 124-155.
Hunt and Handsfield
85
Parrot, W. G. (2003). Positioning and the emotions. In R. Harr & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts (pp. 29-43). Westport, CT: Praeger. Peterson, D. S., Taylor, B. M., Burnham, B., & Schock, R. (2009). Reflective coaching conversations: A missing piece. Reading Teacher, 62(6), 500-509. Rainville, K. N., & Jones, S. (2009). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a literacy coach. Reading Teacher, 61(6), 440-448. Reynolds, B., & Fitzpatrick, J. (1999). The transversality of Michel de Certeau: Foucaults panoptic discourse and the cartographic impulse. Diacritics, 29(3), 63-80. Ribiero, B. T. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice. Are we talking about the same things? In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 48-82). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schutz, P. A., & Zembylas, M. (2009). Introduction to advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers lives. In P. A. Sdhutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 3-11). New York, NY: Springer. Smith, A. T. (2007). The middle school literacy coach: Considering roles in context. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 56, 53-67. Solomon, R. C. (1993). The passions: Emotions and the meaning of life. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Steckel, B. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact? Reading Teacher, 63(1), 14-23. Stover, K., Kissel, B., Haag, K., & Shoniker, R. (2011). Differentiated coaching: Fostering reflection with teachers. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 498-509. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vanderburg, M., & Stephens, D. (2010). The impact of literacy coaches: What teachers value and how teachers change. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 141-163. Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. Reading Teacher, 62(3), 222-231. Watson, C. (2007). Small stories, positioning analysis, and the doing of professional identities in learning to teach. Narrative Inquiry, 17(2), 371-389. Zembylas, M. (2002). Structures of feeling in curriculum and teaching: Theorizing the emotional rules. Educational Theory, 52(2), 187-208. Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating teacher identity: Emotion, resistance, and self formation. Educational Theory, 53(1), 107-127. Zembylas, M. (2005a). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A poststructuralist view on emotion and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 935-948. Zembylas, M. (2005b). Teaching with emotion: A postmodern enactment. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
86 Author Biographies
Carolyn S. Hunt is a doctoral candidate and instructional assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Illinois State University in Normal, Illinois. Her research interests include literacy coaching and second language literacy. Lara J. Handsfield is an associate professor of literacy and elementary education at Illinois State University. Her research centers on literacy instruction in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, teachers negotiations of multiple political and pedagogical demands in their literacy instruction, and implications for student and teacher identities. Her research has been published in a variety of professional and academic journals, including Reading Research Quarterly, Language Arts, Journal of Literacy Research, Theory Into Practice, and Research in the Teaching of English.

47 Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

47 Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Literacy Research http://jlr.sagepub.

Downloaded from jlr.sagepub.com at Universitat Heidelberg on October 23, 2013

Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Review of Related Literature Conceptualizing the Roles of Literacy Coaches

Hunt and Handsfield

Contextualizing Literacy Coaches Roles

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Exploring Roles Through Professional Development

Identity, Power, and Positioning

Hunt and Handsfield

Limitations of Existing Research

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

The Limits of Role

Hunt and Handsfield

Identity, Positioning, and Power

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Tactics, Space, and Story

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Research Context and Method

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

Note: CIM = comprehensive intervention model; PCL = partnerships in comprehensive literacy.

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

Trustworthiness and Member Checking

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Sandys Small Story: Thats Not Me

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Isabellas Small Story: I Felt Set Up to Fail

Hunt and Handsfield

Brees Small Story: Its Hard to Find My Successes

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

A Vignette Featuring Yvette: We Have Masterful Personalities

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Discussion Conflicting Discourses

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Framings as Storied Spaces

Implications and Conclusions

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

Appendix A Interview Questions

Carolyn Sandy Carolyn Sandy

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Sandy Carolyn Sandy

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Carolyn Isabella Carolyn Isabella

Hunt and Handsfield

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Journal of Literacy Research 45(1)

Hunt and Handsfield