What Is the Empirical Research Base of Early Childhood Coaching? A Mapping Review

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI:10.3102/00346543231195836
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":null,"pages":null},"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
幼儿辅导的实证研究基础是什么?地图综述
本研究对幼儿(出生至8岁)辅导的经验基础进行了研究,通过对相关文献的系统梳理,包括不同的研究设计,以代表与幼儿辅导相关的已发表研究的全部广度。系统评价产生了1987年至2019年间发表的374项独特研究,这些研究按研究设计类型(例如,因果关系;定量因果;定性的;单一大小写的设计);研究人群;报告了儿童早期辅导的内容、结构和过程。描述性分析显示,几乎一半的研究设计是因果关系(45.99%);超过75%的研究对教师的成果或经历感兴趣。最有针对性的指导内容领域是社会情感(44.92%的研究)和语言/识字发展(43.58%的研究)。不同研究对教练结构的报告不一致。在教学过程中,观察是报告最多的教练策略(73.53%的研究),在教学之外,提供评价反馈是报告最多的教练策略(62.83%的研究)。回顾发现文献基础包括多种研究设计,绝大多数研究发生在学前环境中(70.32%)。研究结果还表明,越来越多的教练研究关注儿童的结果(60.16%)。结果表明,需要更多的研究直接关注教练,以及对婴幼儿计划和社交情感和语言/识字以外的内容领域的教练的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
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.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies Leveraging Physical Activities to Support Learning for Young People via Technologies: An Examination of Educational Practices Across the Field Robot-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1