Supporting Universal Prevention Programs: A Two-Phased Coaching Model

Abstract

Schools are adopting evidence-based programs designed to enhance students’ emotional and behavioral competencies at increasing rates (Hemmeter, Snyder, & Artman, 2011). At the same time, teachers express the need for increased support surrounding implementation of these evidence-based programs (Carter & Van Norman, 2010). Ongoing professional development in the form of coaching may enhance teacher skills and implementation (Noell et al., 2005; Stormont, Reinke, Newcomer, Darney, & Lewis, 2012). There exists a need for a coaching model that can be applied to a variety of teacher skill levels and one that guides coach decision-making about how best to support teachers. This article provides a detailed account of a two-phased coaching model with empirical support developed and tested with coaches and teachers in urban schools (Becker, Bradshaw, Domitrovich, & Ialongo, 2013). In the initial universal coaching phase, all teachers receive the same coaching elements regardless of their skill level. Then, in the tailored coaching phase, coaching varies according to the strengths and needs of each teacher. Specifically, more intensive coaching strategies are used only with teachers who need additional coaching supports whereas other teachers receive just enough support to consolidate and maintain their strong implementation. Examples of how coaches used the two-phased coaching model when working with teachers who were implementing two universal prevention programs (i.e., the PATHS® curriculum and PAX Good Behavior Game [PAX GBG]) provide illustrations of the application of this model. The potential reach of this coaching model extends to other school-based programs as well as other settings in which coaches partner with interventionists to implement evidence-based programs.

Understanding and Measuring Coach–Teacher Alliance: A Glimpse Inside the ‘Black Box’

“…There has been relatively limited attention to understanding and measuring the core attributes of coaching (Becker et al 2013), making it a bit of a ‘black box’. This article aimed to fill gaps in the literature regarding the conceptualization and measurement of the coach–teacher alliance through the perspective of both coaches and teachers.…”

“…Although the current sample of 147 teachers and four coaches is relatively small for factor analytic and psychometric work, there are few large scale studies of coaching and the dynamic coach–teacher relationship (Becker et al 2013). Nevertheless, the relatively small sample may limit the interpretation and generalizability of the findings.…”

“…The items were hypothesized to assess four areas of coach–teacher alliance: working relationship, competent implementation of the coaching process, teacher investment in the process, and the benefits of coaching. As noted earlier, there were 12 additional items included on the coach rating form, which were selected based on prior literature (e.g., Becker et al 2013; Domitrovich et al 2015; Rhodes and Beneicke 2002) and focus interviews, through which coaches described challenges (e.g., strong emotions; problems with teachers’ supervisor) that may impede coaching success. See Table 1 for a listing of items on the measures.…”

Clearing hurdles: the challenges of implementation of mental health evidence-based practices in under-resourced schools

“…For example, in the Bridging Mental Health and Education in Urban Schools (Cappella et al, 2012) program, mental health clinicians provided consultation and coaching to teachers on classroom behavior management and effective teaching strategies, which resulted in better student-teacher relationships, student academic self-concept and lower peer victimization. A two-phase (universal and tailored) coaching model has been successfully used by Becker and colleagues (Becker, Darney, Domitrovich, Keperling, & Ialongo, 2013) for the implementation of Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies curriculum (Greenberg & Kusche, 2006) and the PAX Good Behavior Game (Embry, Staatemeier, Richardson, Lauger, & Mitich, 2003) for the prevention of off-task, aggressive and disruptive behaviors and promotion of positive classroom climate (Becker, Bradshaw, Domitrovich, & Ialongo, 2013). Similarly, Reinke and colleagues (Reinke, Stormont, Webster-Stratton, Newcomer, & Herman, 2012; Stormont & Reinke, 2012) and Pianta and colleagues (Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008) have used consultation and targeted feedback for the implementation of EBPs to improve teacher-student interactions and children’s externalizing behavior in predominantly low-income urban schools.…”

Case Study of a School-Based Universal Dating Violence Prevention Program

“…Therefore, expanding and/or intensifying training might be the best way to maximize efficacy of program. Other promising approaches in other fields are a two-phased coaching model, where teachers are initially trained in a universal program and then receive individualized coaching sessions tailored to specific areas of weakness (Becker, Darney, Domitrovich, Keperling, & Ialongo, 2013) and continuous professional development (LaChausse, Clark, & Chapple, 2014). Future research on dating violence prevention should devote greater attention to evaluating training strategies and expanding qualitative assessment of students' response to curriculum material.…”