Rachel E. Schachter, Lisa L. Knoche, Molly J. Goldberg, Junrong Lu
{"title":"What Is the Empirical Research Base of Early Childhood Coaching? A Mapping Review","authors":"Rachel E. Schachter, Lisa L. Knoche, Molly J. Goldberg, Junrong Lu","doi":"10.3102/00346543231195836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined the empirical base for early childhood (birth to 8) coaching via a systematic mapping review of the relevant literature, including diverse research designs to represent the full breadth of published studies related to early childhood coaching. The systematic review yielded 374 unique studies published between 1987 and 2019 that were coded for type of study design (e.g., causal; quantitative noncausal; qualitative; single-case design); research populations; and reported content, structure, and processes of early childhood coaching. Descriptive analyses revealed that almost half of the study designs were causal (45.99%); over 75% of the studies were interested in the outcomes or experiences of teachers. The most targeted coaching content domains were social-emotional (44.92% of studies) and language/literacy development (43.58% of studies). Reporting on coaching structure was inconsistent across studies. Observation was the most reported coaching strategy during instruction (73.53% of studies), and provision of evaluative feedback was the most frequently reported coaching strategy outside of instruction (62.83% of studies). The review identified the literature base includes a diversity of study designs, and a great majority of studies occur in preschool settings (70.32%). Findings also suggest that a growing number of coaching studies are focused on child outcomes (60.16%). Results indicate a need for more studies that focus on coaches directly as well as research about coaching in infant/toddler programs and in content domains beyond social-emotional and language/literacy.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231195836","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
This study examined the empirical base for early childhood (birth to 8) coaching via a systematic mapping review of the relevant literature, including diverse research designs to represent the full breadth of published studies related to early childhood coaching. The systematic review yielded 374 unique studies published between 1987 and 2019 that were coded for type of study design (e.g., causal; quantitative noncausal; qualitative; single-case design); research populations; and reported content, structure, and processes of early childhood coaching. Descriptive analyses revealed that almost half of the study designs were causal (45.99%); over 75% of the studies were interested in the outcomes or experiences of teachers. The most targeted coaching content domains were social-emotional (44.92% of studies) and language/literacy development (43.58% of studies). Reporting on coaching structure was inconsistent across studies. Observation was the most reported coaching strategy during instruction (73.53% of studies), and provision of evaluative feedback was the most frequently reported coaching strategy outside of instruction (62.83% of studies). The review identified the literature base includes a diversity of study designs, and a great majority of studies occur in preschool settings (70.32%). Findings also suggest that a growing number of coaching studies are focused on child outcomes (60.16%). Results indicate a need for more studies that focus on coaches directly as well as research about coaching in infant/toddler programs and in content domains beyond social-emotional and language/literacy.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.