secondary literacy coaching: a macedonian perspective

© 2007 INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION (pp. 240–250) doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.3.4

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 3 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7240

Elizabeth G. Sturtevant, Wayne M. Linek

Secondary literacy coaching: A Macedonian perspective


A professional development project in

eastern Europe is helping to create teacher

leaders who can make positive

changes in their schools.

“In the beginning, we were not very[well] accepted by [our]colleagues...[but] now I feel like aleader in the school [where] I teach.”(Vocational high school teacher/SEA cohort train-er, Republic of Macedonia, summer 2005).

In North American school districts, “literacycoaches,” or literacy educators who assist contentteachers in using literacy strategies effectively inmiddle and high school classrooms, have recentlybecome recognized as an important resource forsecondary schools (e.g., Sturtevant, 2003). Literacycoaches must be excellent classroom teachers andunderstand adolescents’ literacy and learningneeds. In addition, they must have a strong knowl-edge base in both content area teaching and litera-cy teaching, and be well prepared to work withother adults (International Reading Association,2005). In an effort to improve adolescent literacy,school districts often ask literacy coaches to leadworkshops on instructional strategies designed toimprove students’ reading, writing, and communi-cation. Coaches also provide ongoing mentoringfor colleagues in a variety of disciplines.

In a similar way, selected secondary educa-tors from vocational high schools in the Republic

of Macedonia have recently been working asteacher trainers and coaches for colleagues withinand outside of their own schools. Since the spring

of 2004, vocational high schoolsthroughout Macedonia have been in-volved in an effort to add content lit-eracy and learning strategies to theircurricula. The overall project, calledSecondary Education Activity (SEA),includes a variety of programs, one ofwhich is a multifaceted professional

development project designed collaboratively by ateam of international and Macedonian educators.Teachers throughout the country participated ina year-long series of workshops, with 16 selectteachers from the first year of workshops servingas trainers and coaches for teachers coming afterthem in the second year. SEA is a collaboration ofthe International Reading Association (IRA), theAmerican Institutes for Research (AIR), and thegovernment of Macedonia with funding throughthe United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID).

Background on literacycoachingThe concept of teachers “coaching,”“training,” orin other ways working with colleagues for profes-sional development has been shown to be effec-tive in a variety of contexts. As early as the late1970s scholars found positive benefits of staff de-velopment programs in which teachers provided

Sturtevant teaches atGeorge Mason University,

Fairfax, Virginia, USA; [email protected]. Linek

teaches at Texas A & M University–Commerce, USA.


J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 3 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7 241

in-class assistance for one another (Joyce &Showers, 2002). More recently, studies have foundthat adding a coaching component to a staff de-velopment model greatly increases the likelihoodthat teachers will implement new methods. Joyceand Showers noted, for example, that “wheretransfer to classroom is the object, the full array[of staff development components] is needed—theory, demonstration, practice, and peer coach-ing” (p. 77).

At the secondary level, literacy educatorshave worked in coaching roles for several decades,but on a limited basis due primarily to fundingissues (Anders, 2002). Titles for teachers in thisrole have varied, including (just to mention afew) secondary reading specialist, reading resourceteacher, peer coach, or literacy coach (Sturtevant,2003). Although the effects of secondary literacycoaching programs have not yet been studied ex-tensively, there is evidence that these modelsmake sense for school improvement, especiallywhen teachers who are knowledgeable about lit-eracy, secondary curriculum, and working withadult learners are recruited to become coaches(International Reading Association, 2005).

One aspect of secondary literacy coachingthat has been studied little, if at all, is the effect ofcoaching on coaches themselves. Although re-cently there have been efforts to establish stan-dards for teachers selected to become coaches(International Reading Association, 2005), weneed to know more about what motivates teach-ers to move into roles where they are workingwith adult colleagues rather than, or in additionto, their work with students. We also need toknow how this shift affects a teacher’s own devel-opment as a professional, and whether there aresignificant dilemmas or problems teachers mustsolve to become successful in their new role ascoach. Increased knowledge about coaches’ per-ceptions of the benefits and problems associatedwith their positions could enhance school dis-tricts’ efforts to recruit and retain effective literacycoaches.

The Macedonian contextMacedonia—a small nation that has long servedas a crossroads between Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia& Montenegro, and Greece—became independ-ent in 1991 with the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Asin other countries in this region that separatedfrom communist governments in the latter partof the 20th century, Macedonia’s independencesparked significant change not only for the gov-ernment but also for the school system. Countriesthroughout eastern and southeastern Europe ex-perienced similar, often extraordinary, levels ofeducational reform during this time period.Calderhead called the experience of these nations“unprecedented” (2001, p. 777), and provided theexample of Slovenia, also part of the formerYugoslavia, which experienced a “transition froma state within a country to an independent parlia-mentary democracy [that]...required some radi-cal rethinking of its educational system”(Calderhead, 2001, p. 784). Meredith and Steele(2000), who have worked extensively in the re-gion, explained that although the Soviet-styleeducational systems, which had been in place formore than 40 years, were often considered “asource of great pride” because of high studentachievement, “nearly every nation in the region”targeted education for reform shortly after gain-ing independence, in part to provide studentswith opportunities for experiencing more activelearning and democratic civic education in school(p. 31).

In the Republic of Macedonia, which has along history of educational excellence going backto medieval times, there is a strong and growinginterest in teaching strategies that will engage stu-dents and help them become more active readers,writers, and learners (Jankulovska, 2005).However, the nation has experienced severe eco-nomic problems including very high unemploy-ment as well as challenges related to serving theneeds of several different ethnic and languagegroups within its borders. The Macedonian gov-ernment has encouraged educational improve-ment in a variety of areas, including an emphasis



on improved secondary vocational education

through the SEA Project (Jankulovska, 2005).

The SEA ProjectThe SEA Project began in 2003 when the govern-

ment of Macedonia requested international tech-

nical assistance in providing teachers and schools

with updated curriculum, materials, technology,

and other resources. As in the United States and

elsewhere, Macedonian educational leaders

wished to assist teachers in moving away from

formal lecture-style instruction toward instruc-

tion that includes group work, discussion, proj-

ects, and links between the school and

community (Howard & Birdyshaw, 2005/2006).

One important goal was to engage adolescents in

“active learning” using a variety of texts and lan-

guage-based strategies that encourage collabora-

tion, critical thinking, and reasoning ability, as

these are considered important prerequisites for

successful participation in a democratic society

and free-market economy.

Initially, four training modules were written

by an international team of 12 experienced

teacher educators, including Elena Ackovska-

Leskovska, Branko Aleksovski, Sonja Gosevska-

Ivanovic, Vesna Janevski, Lirie Rexhepi, Snezana

Jankulovska, and Florina Shehu from the Republic

of Macedonia and William Brozo, Jill Lewis, David

Moore, Gary Moorman, and Elizabeth Sturtevant

from the United States (Ackovska-Leskovska et al.,

2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2005).

The modules focused on teaching strategies

that blended language-based and hands-on activ-

ity in a variety of venues (individual classrooms,

interdisciplinary projects, community settings,

and workplaces). Examples were provided in the

wide variety of vocational and general subject ar-

eas taught in Macedonian schools (see module

content, Figure 1). Furthermore, the modules

were specifically structured so that teachers could

do the following:

• Learn the new teaching strategies throughimmersion in them during a workshop

• Adapt and apply their knowledge by creat-ing and implementing lessons in their ownclassrooms

• Reflect on their experience and share withothers at the next workshop (held severalweeks or months later)

The modules were written in English at collabo-rative meetings between the U.S. volunteers andMacedonian educators held in Skopje,Macedonia, and during follow-up online com-munication. After revision, they were translatedinto the Macedonian and Albanian languages, tomeet the needs of teachers from different ethnicbackgrounds in Macedonia. Both languages areused as primary languages of instruction inMacedonia, depending on the student populationserved by a particular school.

Next, more than 100 Macedonian educa-tors, representing 15 vocational high schoolsthroughout the country, began a year-long seriesof workshops (approximately 120 hours) led byNorth American and European educators whovolunteered through the International ReadingAssociation (Phase I). Each Macedonian schoolsent a team of four teachers from a variety ofcontent fields as well as a school director andpedagogue (a role similar to guidance counseloror staff development coordinator in the UnitedStates). The workshops were held in hotel confer-ence facilities in Ohrid and Struga, Macedoniancities on beautiful Lake Ohrid, for three or fourdays. To get to the workshops, most participantstraveled in small groups, usually by bus, overmountainous terrain for several hours. Expenseswere paid by project funding for school partici-pants as well as for the international volunteers.However, school faculties had to organize to pro-vide class coverage for teachers who were gone forthe workshops as paid substitute teachers are gen-erally not available in Macedonia.

At the end of the year of workshops, theteachers from each of the 15 schools developed

dissemination plans for their own schools, as theywere expected to deliver the total workshop seriesto every teacher at their own schools and serve asmentors and coaches for their colleagues. In addi-tion, 16 content teachers were selected to become“cohort trainers” for the second year of the proj-

ect. The cohort trainers subsequently received ad-ditional training in workshop facilitation and be-came responsible for providing staff developmentfor over 200 teachers from an additional 35schools throughout Macedonia (Phase II) as wellas on-site coaching at their own schools. The



F i g u r e 1C o n t e n t o f f o u r m o d u l e s d e v e l o p e d c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y

b y i n t e r n a t i o n a l v o l u n t e e r s a n d M a c e d o n i a n e d u c a t o r s( A c k o v s k a - L e s k o v s k a e t a l . , 2 0 0 4 a , 2 0 0 4 b , 2 0 0 4 c , 2 0 0 5 ) .

Module 1: Learning in the classroom

• Purpose of the module

• Characteristics and needs of the adolescent learner

• Demonstration activity 1: Discussion web/debate

• Demonstration activity 2: RAFT (Role/audience/format/topic)

• Demonstration activity 3: SQPL (Student questions for purposeful learning)

• Demonstration activity 4: Lesson planning

• Demonstration activity 5: Building criteria

Module 2: Learning through projects



• Demonstration activity 1: Self-questioning

• Demonstration activity 2: Double-entry journal

• Demonstration activity 3: Collaboration and communication—using structured academic

conversations

• Demonstration activity 4: The research process

Module 3: Learning through community



• Demonstration activity 1: Developing critical thinking by using expectation/reaction guides

• Demonstration activity 2: Techniques for interviewing

• Demonstration activity 3: Conducting, analyzing, and interpreting research using oral history

• Demonstration activity 4: Building school and community partnerships

Module 4: Learning in the workplace



• Demonstration activity 1: Using visuals for completing tasks and comprehending texts

• Demonstration activity 2: Role playing

• Demonstration activity 3: Self-assessment

• Demonstration activity 4: Development of a learning log

international volunteers, including those whofirst participated in writing the project materialsand 10 additional literacy educators, served asmentors for the Macedonian educators at thisstage in the process. In groups of seven, the vol-unteers traveled to Macedonia for 10-day periods,attended the workshops, and provided feedbackand support for teams of Macedonian cohorttrainers. For example, at the workshop in Strugain March of 2005, 7 International ReadingAssociation volunteers from the United Statesand Canada served as mentors for 15Macedonian teachers who were leading work-shops for their colleagues. The Macedonianteachers worked in teams of two or three andeach team was supported during the workshop byone International Reading Association volunteerwho observed instruction and conferred with thecohort trainers before and after each session.Continuous translation of the workshop and allconversation was provided for each InternationalReading Association volunteer.

After the cohort trainers had delivered threeof the four modules in Phase II of the project,they were invited to a two-day meeting (in July of2005) in the capital Skopje to discuss progressand to revise the training manuals. This meetingwas also attended by the group of fiveInternational Reading Association volunteerswho had participated in the writing of the mod-ules as well as project leaders from the UnitedStates and Macedonia. At that meeting, the co-hort trainers completed open-ended question-naires related to their experiences in the project.This article explores the perceptions expressed bythese Macedonian educators, with a particular fo-cus on how they believed their participation inthe project had affected their own professionaldevelopment as well as dilemmas they have hadto overcome to participate in the project.

MethodologyTwo questions were asked of the Macedonian ed-ucators: What has the SEA Project contributed to

your own professional development (as a teacheror leader of teachers)? What dilemmas or prob-lems have you had to solve to participate in thisproject (personal or professional)? The question-naire was available to participants in English andMacedonian (all participants were literate in oneor both of these languages), and completion ofthe questionnaire was voluntary. Fourteen com-pleted the questionnaire (two were absent fromthe meeting). Thirteen participants answered inMacedonian, and one answered in English. AllMacedonian responses were translated to Englishbefore the data were analyzed.

Two educational researchers who had partic-ipated as volunteer trainers and mentors for theproject analyzed the data using qualitativemethodology. Specifically, all data were tran-scribed and constant comparison (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used ina recursive analysis process on the responses. Thisrecursive analysis occurred in several stages in or-der to identify the effect on professional develop-ment and identify dilemmas that had to be solved.First, both researchers analyzed the data inde-pendently to develop initial codes and categories.Then the researchers compared their notes anddiscussed them until they reached consensus onthe codes and categories. The researchers then col-laboratively reanalyzed the data. As the reanalysisproceeded, codes and categories were verified, col-lapsed, or modified (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) asthemes across categories were identified.

Question 1 resultsThe first question was designed to elicit partici-pants’ comments about their own learning anddevelopment during their training and their sub-sequent work with other teachers. (“In what wayhas the SEA Project contributed to your profes-sional development [as a teacher or leader ofteachers)?”] An overview of the results for thisquestion is provided in Figure 2. As illustrated inthis figure, we found that the overarching themethat emerged from the data was that of “Growth.”



There were two aspects to the theme: growth inleadership and teaching, and personal growth.There were two categories under each of thesethemes and two subcategories under each catego-ry. Supporting data for each major category ismore fully explained here.

Growth in leadership and teachingIn their responses, the cohort trainers often de-scribed changes in their classrooms that occurredas a result of their learning at the workshops. Forexample, several mentioned making students ac-tive and responsible for their own learning. Onecohort trainer described these changes in the fol-lowing way:

SEA Project helped me to develop on a professionalfield and made me able to use the strategies in myclasses that made my classes more interesting, enabledmy students to be more active, creative, and to think[more critically]. Actually this enabled my students tobecome leaders in the class and let me be only a facili-

tator of the class. My students learned to communicateamong themselves, to respect one another’s opinion.

Another cohort trainer said,

The techniques broke up the monotony and the tradi-tional teaching of the lessons and made my subject(literature) more close to students that didn’t like thereading. Students became more active participants inthe teaching process, more interested in the topicseven after the classes. I should also mention the criti-cal thinking skills that the students developed.

In general, the cohort trainers indicated that theiruse of strategies learned in the workshops seemedto change their students’ perceptions of learningand instruction. Teachers’ and students’ roles weremodified; one teacher commented that teacherswere “growing in the eyes” of their students.

The cohort trainers also described specificchanges they made in their instruction and in-structional planning. They mentioned using a



F i g u r e 2T h e m e s a n d c a t e g o r i e s e m e r g i n g f r o m r e s p o n s e s

t o t h e f i r s t s u r v e y q u e s t i o n

Teachers’growth

Leadership

and teaching

Changes in

classroom

Students Instruction Ownschool

Workshop

Other

educatorsSkills Knowledge Affect/

feelings

Personal

wider variety of strategies, becoming moremetacognitive and reflective about their teachingdecisions, and organizing their classrooms differ-ently. For example, one said,

As a result of this project I became able to make thedifference between the conventional and authenticteaching and to transform myself on that directionwhen working with my students and make my stu-dents able to think creatively. I believe that I made astep forward in the teaching methodology comparedto my other colleagues.

Another cohort trainer explained,

The strategies enabled me to become an authenticteacher, to be able to organize my classes in a differentway and to be more successful. The project itself mademe search for other strategies on active learning.

A third cohort trainer summed up what manyothers expressed,

This project and the new strategies caused a revolu-tion in the classes [at my school], meaning the way ofteaching and working with the students, the skills stu-dents have developed, etc. This means a lot to us.

Overall, those surveyed indicated that they hadchanged their classrooms and instruction in waysthat encouraged students to become more in-volved, creative, and active in reading, writing,and discussion.

The cohort trainers also talked about theimpact of their work on other educators, at theirown schools, and at the workshops they had con-ducted for teachers from other schools. For ex-ample, when explaining growth in leadershipand teaching, one cohort trainer (whom wequoted at the beginning of this article) discussedother teachers’ responses at her school in the fol-lowing way:

I have attended all workshops organized by SEA,which helped me a lot in my professional develop-ment. At the beginning, we were not well accepted byother colleagues, but after the dissemination started[in my school] things changed a lot. Now I feel like aleader in the school [where] I teach.

Another respondent also mentioned growth inbecoming a leader,

In the school [where] I teach, I became “Teacher ofTeachers.”

The cohort trainers noted development of awider sphere of colleagues as a result of teachingthe workshops, in addition to their own profes-sional growth. As noted earlier, the cohort train-ers were mentored by international volunteerswhen they taught workshops during the first year.One cohort trainer said,

The role of Cohort Trainer has a special meaning forme in terms of new experience, new challenges, newfriendships with people of my profession from ourcountry as well as from other countries.

Another expressed,

[Things that were important to me included] buildingself-confidence, meeting with new strategies, expandingthe cooperation with teachers from different schools,[and] exchanging experience with IRA volunteers.

One cohort trainer summed up professionalgrowth as a result of working with others inworkshops by saying simply,

My experience as a trainer...taught me to exchange ex-perience and learn from others.

Although these quotes illustrate the teachers’ feel-ings about their growth in leadership and teach-ing, the comments also are integrally connectedto personal growth as indicated by the doubleheaded arrow in Figure 2.

Personal growthWhen these cohort trainers described their per-sonal growth, they spoke in terms of growth inskills, knowledge, and affective dimensions. Forexample, when describing personal growth inskills, one said,

I can lead a discussion, I can listen to others.Somehow this project enabled me to prove myself as a



person—that I can accept the challenges and take fur-ther actions.

Another cohort trainer succinctly summed upgrowth in personal skills, adding a humorous men-tion of the time required by the project, by saying,

[I had] benefits on the following skills: reading, listen-ing, decision making, team working, communication,working with IT equipment, and of course now I ap-preciate my free time more.

In addition to skills, the cohort trainers also ac-knowledged growth in knowledge. For example,one respondent said,

As a trainer, I went more deeply into the process ofteaching and learning, which helped me as a teacherbut also as a trainer.

To sum up their own growth, two cohort trainersmade the following succinct statements:

[This project has helped by] expanding my knowledgeof teaching methodologies.

I’ve learned new strategies applicable in my classes.

Cohort trainers also noted affective resultsof their learning, such as improved motivationfor themselves and their students, improved self-confidence, and improved enjoyment of teaching.For example, one cohort trainer explained,

SEA Project had an enormous influence on my pro-fessional development, especially if I take into consid-eration the need that I was feeling to incorporatesomething new in my classes so that they could be-come more interesting for my students and for me.New activities woke us up from a “winter sleep” andput life in our classes as well as outside the classes.

Another respondent explained,

I overcame some of my fears, I have more self-confidence, and I’m motivated to do a better job inmy school.

One simply stated,

In fact, as a result of the strategies I enjoy my classes

with my students.

A fourth cohort trainer mentioned that imple-

menting the strategies had affected roles within the

classroom and put new responsibility on students:

This project has changed my opinion and attitude to-

ward the teaching process. Now I really feel that man-

aging the class is the only thing I need to do and all

the rest is taken care by the students and they show

excellent success in this.

These cohort trainers experienced personal

growth and growth as teachers that increased their

ability to work with students and colleagues as

well as their professional knowledge; for many,

participation in the project also positively affected

the feelings they have toward teaching and learn-

ing. This growth was referred to over and over

again in the responses as various teachers spoke of

increasing self-confidence and self-efficacy.

Question 2 resultsThe second question was designed to enable the

participants to report on difficulties they may

have encountered. (“What dilemmas or problems

did you have to solve to participate in this project

[personal or professional]?”) Although most of

the 14 cohort trainers who completed the ques-

tionnaire noted tremendous personal and profes-

sional growth as a result of participating in the

SEA Project, this growth was not without cost

and sacrifice. First, it should be noted that more

than half of the participants, in response to this

question, stated they had “no dilemmas,” and two

wrote “no comment.” However, others provided a

variety of answers which related to an overarch-

ing theme we called “need to compensate.” Three

categories emerged within this theme: time issues,

uncertainty, and worth the effort. Each of these

three categories, with accompanying supporting

data, is explained here.



Time issuesTime was often identified as an area where adjust-

ment was needed with home or family, school, and

the program. For example, one respondent said,

I had the dilemma of the necessity of attending these

workshops and being away from my family...[and] a

professional problem is absence from my regular

classes when conducting trainings in Struga.

Another cohort trainer said,

I had to organize additional classes [for my students]

to compensate [for missing] my classes while I’m ab-

sent from the school, I had to learn that the day might

last 26 hours.

Yet another expressed,

Problems are everyday things. Simply I’ve learned that

I have to spend more energy so that I can compensate

in my family and in the school [where] I work.

Overall, missing time with their families and stu-

dents, and spending extra energy to make up for the

time lost were major areas requiring compensation.

UncertaintyAs the project was large and had evolved quickly,

some cohort trainers mentioned that at certain

points in time, they had experienced uncertainty

about what was expected of them. Several said this

affected relationships at their own schools, at least

temporarily. For example, one cohort trainer said,

At the beginning we were not aware about our role

and responsibilities. This made us unable to answer

the questions that were coming from our [school] col-

leagues and it caused troubles and unpleasant situa-

tions in the school. After the dissemination started,

teachers in the school realized the responsibilities we

have with all the trainings going on and now things

are getting better and better.

Another commented further on the need to advocate

for the program with colleagues at school by saying,

I’ve had to convince my colleagues that SEA is a veryserious institution.

One respondent noted questions related to thewhole, indicating there was more uncertainty inthe beginning:

Mainly the questions were: Will we be financially sup-ported during the whole process, how long it will last,how other teachers will accept this, etc. [Eventually]most of the questions were answered.

Worth the effortAlthough several cohort trainers discussed prob-lems and dilemmas, all who gave an answer be-yond “no comment” said that their participationin the project was worth the effort. For example,one cohort trainer exclaimed,

None [no dilemma] that wasn’t worth the effort! Iknow now that I’ve gained more than I may have lost!!!

Another said,

When I realized the quality and the success of thetraining, the dilemma I had was solved.

A third respondent explained,

Taking into consideration the benefits of this wholeprocess, nothing worthy was shown to be a dilemmaor a problem.

Thus, the participants who gave in-depth answersto this question felt that even though there weredilemmas, the SEA Project and the success theywere experiencing as a result of the training wasworth the effort.

DiscussionAlthough in many reform projects, “the ongoingprofessional development of teachers[has]...tended to receive scant attention”(Calderhead, 2001, p. 794), the SEA Project inMacedonia has focused strongly and systemati-cally on teacher professional development since



its inception. With the support of teacher educa-tors from within and outside their own country,high school classroom teachers in this study, rep-resenting a wide variety of content areas, havelearned and adapted techniques for infusing liter-acy strategies into their curricula. They also havetaught these techniques to teachers from otherschools in their new role as cohort trainers andhave provided ongoing coaching for colleagues attheir own schools. In the process of taking onnew roles and responsibilities, these teachers havegained new perspectives on their students, theircolleagues, and themselves.

The findings reported here, as in most stud-ies, raise more questions than answers. One issuerelates to the change process. A difficulty facingschools throughout the world is how to effectivelyimplement change. Schools have complex cul-tures that are influenced by the culture of theircommunities, school districts, and nations; thesecultures likely facilitate certain teaching practicesover others (Sturtevant, 1996). One way to effectchange in schools is to develop teacher leaderswho can serve as the agents of change withintheir local settings. However, as Chen (2005) not-ed, “educating teachers as change agents is a chal-lenge” (p. 11). One question that will be of greatimportance in Macedonia in the next few years iswhether, and how, these cohort trainers and otherteachers who participated in the workshops canserve as effective change agents in their schools.The cohort trainers, in completing these ques-tionnaires, often seemed exuberant about theirnew learning and the effect of the newly learnedmethods on their classrooms. Will this enthusi-asm continue, and will it affect other teachers intheir schools? What changes will occur as theschools naturally change over time?

Another related question is specific to theimplementation of content literacy strategies insecondary schools. In North America, researchhas documented a long history of difficulty inconvincing secondary content teachers to usecontent literacy strategies, particularly in highschools (e.g., O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995).

Reading specialists who work in high schools aswell as literacy teacher educators at universitiesexpress concern that teachers frequently seem toresist even trying new methods, claiming timeconstraints, problems meeting standardized test-ing requirements, and other issues. Scholars havealso studied the effects of teachers’ long-held be-liefs about appropriate instruction in their disci-pline on their acceptance of content literacystrategies (e.g., Readence, Kile, & Mallette, 1998).One value of the study reported here is the inter-national comparison it provides. For reasons thatare unknown from these data, the cohort trainersexpressed a strong commitment to the strategiesthey had been taught, emphatically and repeated-ly stating that these strategies were of value tothem and their students. They also indicated theyhad regularly used the strategies and that othersin their schools were doing the same. If furtherresearch proves this to be a continuing trend, itwould be informative to know how school cul-tures in Macedonia, the project design, and othercontextual factors may have facilitated and sup-ported this positive attitude. Schools in otherparts of the world could learn from and build onthe experience in Macedonia when designingtheir own programs of professional development.

It appears that the SEA Project’s efforts tobuild teacher leadership are off to a very success-ful beginning, and that the teachers who havebeen selected for leadership strongly believe thatthe project is enhancing their own learning andthe learning of their students. The teachers reportdilemmas, but tend to indicate that these havebeen manageable and that the project makes anyproblems worth overcoming. We do offer thecaveat that in our work in Macedonia we havetalked informally with teachers who indicate thatsome of the issues expressed in North Americanstudies, especially instructional time constraintsand the effects of required testing, are also prob-lematic for Macedonian teachers. The questionsasked of the cohort trainers in this study did notdelve into these issues. Further research is war-ranted to learn more about additional dilemmasand how the teachers address them over time.



The value of exploring the perceptions ofparticular teachers in any setting goes beyondlearning about conditions in that setting. TheMacedonian cohort trainers provide us with in-sight on their own professional growth and per-sonal experiences. They mention issues related totime for self and family, relationships with col-leagues, and communication within the project.These are issues that may be of concern to teach-ers anywhere and that have been reported in re-search on secondary reading specialists in theUnited States (e.g., Darwin, 2002). Developing theexpertise of literacy coaches and then expectingthese coaches to work with colleagues is an avenuethat is being pursued by numerous school districtsin the United States and elsewhere. Teachers whohave agreed to take on a coaching role may needassistance in coping with the types of pressuresmentioned by the Macedonian teachers. The over-all SEA Project, as well as this study of the cohorttrainers’ perceptions, suggests the value and po-tential of working with high school classroomteachers to develop expertise in literacy, and de-pending on them to help in furthering school im-provement and student learning.

REFERENCESAckovska-Leskovska, E., Aleksovski, B., Brozo, W.,

Gosevska-Ivanovic, S., Janevski, V., Jankulovska, S., et al.

(2004a). Module 1: Learning in the classroom. Skopje,

Macedonia: Secondary Education Activity.

Ackovska-Leskovska, E., Aleksovski, B., Brozo, W.,


(2004b). Module 2: Learning through projects. Skopje,




(2004c). Module 3: Learning through community. Skopje,




(2005). Module 4: Learning in the workplace. Skopje,


Anders, P. (2002). Secondary reading programs: A story of

what was. In D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B.

Maloch, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), 51st Yearbook of the

National Reading Conference (pp. 82–93). Oak Creek,

WI: National Reading Conference.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for ed-

ucation: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Calderhead, J. (2001). International experiences of teaching

reform. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching (4th ed., pp. 777–800). Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association.

Chen, C. (2005). Teachers as change agents: A study of in-

service teachers’ practical knowledge. Action in Teacher

Education, 26(4), 10–19.

Darwin, M. (2002). Delving into the role of the high school

reading specialist. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded

theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Howard, J., & Birdyshaw, D. (December 2005/January

2006). Macedonian educators receive certificates.

Reading Today, 23, 32.

International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for mid-

dle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Author.

Jankulovska, S. (2005, May). Training model and training

phases for teacher professional development. Symposium

presented at the 50th annual convention of the

International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through

staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Meredith, K.S., & Steele, J.L. (2000). Education in transition:

Trends in central and eastern Europe. In M.L. Kamil,

P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),

Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 29–39).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

O’Brien, D.G., Stewart, R.A., & Moje, E.B. (1995). Why con-

tent literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary

school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and

school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.

Readence, J.E., Kile, R.S., & Mallette, M.H. (1998). Secondary

teachers’ beliefs about literacy: Emerging voices. In D.E.

Alvermann, K.A. Hinchman, D.W. Moore, S.F. Phelps, &

D.R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adoles-

cents’ lives (pp. 129–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative re-

search: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sturtevant, E.G. (1996). Lifetime influences on the literacy-

related instructional beliefs of experienced high school

history teachers: Two comparative case studies. Journal of

Literacy Research, 28, 227–257.

Sturtevant, E.G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improv-

ing teaching and learning in secondary schools.

Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.



secondary literacy coaching: a macedonian perspective

Documents