Effects of Peer Coaching on the Rate of Responsive Teacher Statements During a Child-directed Period in an Inclusive Preschool Setting

Abstract

Several barriers to preschool inclusion exist, including the lack of collaboration between early childhood educators and early childhood special educators and the lack of high quality early childhood programs. In this study a multiple probe design across participants was used to evaluate the effectiveness of peer coaching on the rate of responsive statements made by general education preschool teachers. Three Head Start teachers who served students with special needs in their inclusive classrooms participated with an early childhood special education teacher conducting peer coaching sessions. Results indicated that all Head Start teachers increased their rate of responsive statements. Given these preliminary results a discussion on whether or not peer coaching is an effective and practical model for professional development in inclusive preschools follows.

A Comparison of Three Professional Development Mechanisms for Improving the Quality of Standards-Based IEP Objectives

“…The lack of continued improvement in the objectives developed by the PC group was unexpected based on previous findings that endorse peer coaching as an effective strategy for improving acquisition and transfer of a newly acquired skill (Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Kohler et al, 1999; Ladyshewsky, 2002; Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010; Tschantz & Vail, 2000). The most reasonable explanation for this discrepancy is the form of coaching used, peer.…”

“…The current study was unique, in that, it investigated the effectiveness of three different staff development mechanisms simultaneously: web-based learning, workshop-only, and workshop coupled with peer coaching conducted online. Previous studies have limited the investigation of professional development activities to web-based learning only (Ohlund, Yu, & Jannasch-Pennell, 2000; Poplin, 2003), in-service workshop-only (Crow & Snyder, 1998; Eckert, Miller, & DuPaul, 2003; Oliver, 1984; Wong & Yeung, 2003), or training followed by face-to-face peer coaching (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008; Tschantz & Vail, 2000). Concurrent comparison of delivery mechanisms allowed for the identification and comparison of factors contributing to the success or failure of each mechanism.…”

“…A simple checklist identifying skills that are to be critiqued is common practice in the literature (Bethune & Wood, 2013; Jao, 2013; Kohler, Ezell, & Paluselli, 1999; Kohler et al, 1995). Other, more elaborate methods for the collection and review of behaviors such as online transcriptions of teacher utterances (Tschantz & Vail, 2000), analyses of self-reflections (Jang & Chen, 2010, Jao, 2013), tape recordings (Kohler et al, 1999), and videos (Anastos & Ancowitz, 1987; Jang & Chen, 2010) also have been used. Regardless of the data collection format, it is imperative that the observation be followed by accurate, specific, and objective feedback (Showers, 1985).…”

“…Observation followed by peer feedback all occurring on the same day is common practice in the literature (Jao, 2013; Hendrickson, Gardner, Kaiser, & Riley, 1993; Kohler et al, 1997; Kohler et al, 1995; Miller, Harris, & Watanabe, 1991; Tschantz & Vail, 2000). For example, Kohler et al (1999) evaluated the use of peer coaching for improving two kindergarten teachers’ implementation of cooperative learning in language arts.…”

Coaching in Early Education Classrooms Serving Children with Autism: A Pilot Study

“…Peer coaching is the model that has been most widely used in the field of early education. This model focuses on practitioners coaching one another in instructional techniques through either an expert-novice or reciprocal (i.e., alternating coach-learner) coaching relationship (Tschantz and Vail 2000). This flexible model reflects most coaching models in its emphasis on individualized stages of description/instruction, modeling, practice, and reflection through feedback (Cornett and Knight 2009).…”