This study investigates the discourse of elementary school reading coaches and teachers during coaching interactions in four Alabama schools. Coach/teacher dyads recorded naturally occurring coaching dialogue over periods of 3 to 6 weeks. Each participant shared her views on coaching and commented on the recorded discourse during post-interviews conducted separately with each of the participants. Transcripts of the discourse and interviews were analyzed to inform research questions concerning the context, nature, and discourse patterns of one-on-one coaching interactions. Exploring literacy coaching discourse through a sociocultural perspective, utilizing an interpretational and a structural analysis, revealed patterns of dominance, responsiveness, and progressiveness as well as connections between these discourse patterns and teacher learning. The potential for teacher learning was evident in teacher reflectivity and discussions of instruction and student progress. A cross-case analysis revealed themes running through the discourse and experience of these coaching dyads: (a) Corroborating Smith's research (2006), the data revealed multiple roles and tasks shouldered by the reading coaches which distracted reading coaches from instructional coaching. (b) Coaches and teachers talked about the importance of relationship building. (c) There was more evidence of teacher learning seen in the dyads of the reading coaches who had obtained literacy credentials through university preparation. (d) Although coaches dominated interactions, the credentialed coaches varied their dominance, responsiveness, and progressiveness according to their coaching goals and focused on instructional goals rather than on testing more often than did their non-credentialed counterparts. (e) DIBELS testing influenced the coaching discourse. The results of this study imply that research in reading coaching should focus on the following: minimizing the fracturing of the coaching role, constructing a model to evaluate coaches, how models of coaching and patterns of discourse can be intentionally varied to meet coaching goals, the impact of testing on literacy coaching, and how coaches navigate complex coaching relationships. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]