LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Infants & Young Children

Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 323–336
Copyright C 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Coaching Conversations in
Early Childhood Programs
The Contributions of Coach and Coachee
Gayatri Jayaraman, MEd; Christine Marvin, PhD;
Lisa Knoche, PhD; Sue Bainter, MA
Studies to date have linked early childhood (EC) coaching to child, family, and teacher outcomes
but have not investigated “what” is happening in a coaching conversation. This exploratory study
specifically unpacks nuances associated with the coaching conversation process and associations
between the EC coaches’ behaviors and coachees’ participation during conversations. The results
highlight conversation behaviors used by both EC coaches and coachees and how these behaviors
may be associated with each other in building partnerships and promoting collaborative practices.
The conversational behaviors of 24 EC coach–coachee dyads were investigated by reviewing video-
taped sessions of their meetings using a reliable Early Childhood Coaching Conversations coding
system. Results indicated much variability in the use of conversation behaviors. Bivariate corre-
lations provided a hint of possible conversation behaviors associated with relationship building
and a “shared ownership” process during coaching conversations. Implications for future work
in research and practice are discussed. Key words: coach, coaching, collaborative practices,
conversations, early childhood, partnerships, professional development

W E HAVE known for some time that

the success of early childhood (EC)
education relies on the quality of relation-
ships that key adults have with children, as
well as the relationships that adults have with
each other (Buysse & Wesley, 2005; Rush
Author Affiliations: Department of Special & Shelden, 2011). Over recent years, in re-
Education and Communication Disorders, sponse to policies and practices that support
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Ms Jayaraman and
Dr Marvin); and Center for Research on Children, embedded interventions for young children
Youth Families and the Schools, University of with disabilities in natural learning environ-
Nebraska–Lincoln (Dr Knoche and Ms Bainter). ments, there has been an urgent need for pro-
Sincere gratitude is extended to the early childhood viding indirect special supports and services
practitioners, families, and coaches who provided their
time and insight for this study. The authors also thank
using models of collaborative consultation be-
Sandra Scruggs for her help in data processing. tween early interventionists or EC special ed-
The research shared in this paper was supported by a ucators and parents and/or the EC teachers
grant awarded to Dr Lisa Knoche from the Nebraska working with these young children (Buysse &
Children and Families Foundation for the evaluation Wesley, 2005). The professional roles and re-
of a project for U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
man Services American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sponsibilities of early interventionists, special
(ARRA) from 2010-2012. The statements made herein educators, and EC teachers require them to
are those of the authors and are not meant to represent have a complex understanding of child devel-
opinions or policies of the funding agency.
opment, disability-related content, and early
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
education issues. They also need skills to en-
Correspondence: Gayatri Jayaraman, MEd, 202 gage in collaborative partnerships with col-
Barkley Center, Department of Special Educa-
tion and Communication Disorders, University of leagues, professionals from outside agencies,
Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732 (gayatri and family members in order to serve as effec-
[email protected]). tive change agents, share responsibilities for
DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000048 program success, and improve the quality of
323

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

324 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

EC services to young children with disabili- learning principles that represent a collection
ties and their families. Supports for these re- of theories, methods, characteristics, and con-
lationships are reflected broadly in practices ditions under which the process of adult learn-
recommended by the fields of early interven- ing is optimized (Trotter, 2006). On the basis
tion and special education (Division for Early of the findings from a meta-analysis of adult
Childhood, 2014). learning methods and strategies, Dunst and
Hence, the professional development of Trivette (2009) indicated that adults learn best
practicing EC professionals is considered crit- when (a) there is active learner participation,
ical to the quality of experiences afforded to (b) their learning has an immediate context
children (Martinez-Beck & Zaslow, 2006). Re- in which the content can be applied, (c) mul-
search over the past two decades, however, tiple opportunities are provided to practice
has demonstrated that professional develop- their new skills, and (d) evaluation strategies
ment in the form of 1-day workshops alone are used that encourage the learners to re-
for educators may not translate to desired flect and assess whether and how their new
changes in practices. Workshops in conjunc- knowledge and practices are used.
tion with professional coaching were more Competent EC coaches who apply these
likely to result in teachers using new ideas adult learning principles into their EC/early
(Joyce & Showers, 2002). Evidence exists for intervention practices use relational (i.e.,
improved EC teacher practices when focused trust, effective communication, respect, em-
training is followed by on-site mentoring from pathy) and participatory (i.e., shared deci-
a coach who provides feedback and support sions) help-giving practices during their in-
for effective implementation (Fox, Hemme- teractions with the EC teacher- or parent–
ter, Snyder, Binder, & Clarke, 2011; Onchwari coachee. The EC coaches’ effective use of
& Keengwe, 2008; Sheridan, Edwards, Mar- these help-giving practices can help them
vin, & Knoche, 2009; Snyder & Wolfe, 2008). establish effective relationships and provide
Early childhood coaching has become one coachees with opportunities to develop and
of the foremost models for providing profes- strengthen their abilities for interacting with
sional support, whereby an EC special ed- young children with disabilities and thus level
ucator, early interventionist, or experienced the playing field for a shared ownership in
EC teacher (referred to as “coach”) regularly finding solutions to problems (Dunst & Triv-
meets with a parent, child care provider, or ette, 1996).
preschool teacher (referred to as “coachee”) Communication plays a critical role both
to help build their competence and confi- in EC coaching and in building effective col-
dence to support the needs of children un- laborative relationships between coaches and
der their care. State and national professional coachees. Effective communication between
standards and practice guidelines address the coach and the coachee is believed to be
the importance of such teaming/collaboration characterized by openness, meaningfulness,
among professionals (Council for Exceptional effective use of silence, and an ability to adapt
Children, 2014; Division for Early Childhood, communication to meet the needs of task
2009, 2014), but these documents do not indi- and relationship (Friend & Cook, 2010). Ac-
cate specific behaviors that would constitute cording to McWilliam (2010), EC coaching in-
“coaching.” volves transactional communication, a two-
Hanft, Rush, and Shelden (2004) describe way reciprocal conversational interaction pro-
coaching as a “voluntary, nonjudgmental and cess wherein both the speaker and the lis-
collaborative partnership that occurs [be- tener simultaneously send and receive mes-
tween the EC coach and coachee] when one sages through verbal and nonverbal means.
desires to learn new knowledge and skills When engaged in a productive coaching re-
from the other” (p. 1). Coaching in EC pro- lationship, an EC coach regularly meets with
grams has been described as reflecting adult EC teachers or family members and engages

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 325

in conversational interactions by introducing activities as well as the coachees interacting

topics, inviting reflection, engaging in action with children, either live or on videotape, and
planning, and sharing information (i.e., feed- used the data for specific or inferential discus-
back and/or suggestions) for the purpose of sion and mutual reflection with the coachee.
supporting the needs of children and families Action/practice characteristics included both
(Fox et al., 2011; Hanft et al., 2004; Rush, the EC coaches’ modeling of useful strategies
Shelden, & Hanft, 2003; Rush & Shelden, or approaches and direct teaching (explana-
2011). In such conversations, the coach and tion + demonstration), as well as opportuni-
the coachee influence one another’s willing- ties coaches provided for coachees to prac-
ness to stay engaged, share, and collabora- tice new strategies and approaches and seek
tively pursue solutions to mutually agreed- immediate clarification or affirmation. Reflec-
upon goals. tion included problem-solving opportunities
Although EC coaching is becoming com- for the EC coach and the coachee to analyze
monplace in many EC programs, empirical what is working, or not working, relative to
evidence on EC coaching is rather limited. suggested or newly demonstrated approaches
Literature is available on some characteristics and to refine the coachee’s knowledge and
that EC coaches should have to be effective confidence to reflect during conversation, an-
partners with their coachees (Dinnebeil & swer questions, clarify intentions, generate
McInerney, 2011; Friedman, Woods, & Sal- new ideas to contribute to discussion, and
isbury, 2012; Rush & Shelden, 2011; Salis- encourage connections with previously dis-
bury, Woods, & Copeland, 2010; Snyder & cussed topics or suggestions. Feedback by the
Wolfe, 2008), and studies to date provide evi- EC coach was used to help the coachee ex-
dence linking coaching to positive child, fam- pand his or her current level of understanding
ily, or teacher outcomes (Powell, Diamond, of the topics or specific teaching strategies
Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010; Romski et al., discussed during meetings/visits by offering
2011; Sheridan, Knoche, Kupzyk, Edwards, & specific examples or rationale for suggested
Marvin, 2011). changes or the continued or increased use of
Studies conducted by Rush and Shelden specific behaviors or approaches. This type of
(2011) and Friedman et al. (2012) further feedback appeared to increase the coachee’s
investigated what specific coaching strate- confidence and competence for newly learnt
gies were used by EC professionals and con- skills. Friedman et al. (2012) found that the
tributed to collaborative relationships. Rush defined coaching strategies could be used in
and Shelden (2011) identified five core coach- professional development contexts to help
ing characteristics for EC coaches associated early interventionists learn the “how to”
with positive learner outcomes. Friedman (p. 79) of coaching adult caregivers, and sup-
et al. (2012) elaborated on this work by high- port providers’ efforts to build collaborative
lighting more specific behaviors associated relationships in several ways.
with these characteristics and emphasized The adoption and use of coaching in EC/
use of bidirectional conversational strategies, early intervention programs have been chal-
wherein both the EC coach and the coachee lenging because EC practitioners assuming
take turns to share information and ideas, ask EC coaching roles may not fully understand
and respond to questions, and make requests what behaviors constitute coaching and what
to maintain and establish relationships dur- it looks like as a collaborative practice. Emerg-
ing the meetings/visits. Joint planning was ing research has been encouraging, however,
referred to as planning next steps for what and supportive of earlier findings from Joyce
will happen between meetings/visits and in- and Showers (2002) that offering extended
cluded bidirectional exchange of information professional development opportunities with
during conversations. The EC coaches en- coaching practices can foster EC coaches’
gaged in observation of children in routine abilities to (a) use a range of coaching

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

326 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

strategies, (b) vary these strategies based ever, the specific supports offered by coaches
on the contexts where the coaching ses- that led to these outcomes were not investi-
sion is conducted, and (c) select relevant gated. Furthermore, Chang, Early, and Win-
strategies based on coachee responses, needs, ton (2005) have reported that EC practition-
and interests (Basu, Salisbury, & Thorkildsen, ers may have limited or no experience and/or
2010; Cambray-Engstrom & Salisbury, 2010; knowledge of how to collaborate with special
Friedman et al., 2012). It is as yet unclear educators and therapists (i.e., EC coaches) af-
what coaching strategies work for whom un- filiated with the children with disabilities in
der what circumstances and how to evaluate their inclusive preschool classrooms. Hence,
the fidelity with which coaching behaviors there is a need to understand “what” coachees
are implemented in EC programs (Sheridan can do during interactions with EC coaches to
et al., 2009; Snyder, Hemmeter, & McLaugh- help foster this partnership.
lin, 2011; Zaslow, Tout, Halle, Vick-Whittaker, This exploratory study specifically unpacks
& Lavelle, 2010). “what” is happening in coaching conversa-
In 2011, Rush and Shelden called for fur- tions between EC coaches and their coachees.
ther research on specific nuances of coach- The study is an initial attempt to provide a
ing practices to support EC coaches and picture of the conversational behaviors used
coachees. Specifically, research is needed to by EC coaches and coachees during regularly
determine how frequently key behaviors must scheduled coaching conversations. Specifi-
be present in an interaction and what specific cally, this study explores (a) the conversation
coaching practices and promotional strategies behaviors used by EC coaches and coachees
are important to support EC coachees. Fur- during one videotaped coaching session and
ther studies are needed to identify effective (b) how the observed EC coach behaviors re-
ways of documenting the coaching process late to observed coachee behaviors in these
to further assist in effective implementation conversations.
of a proposed action plan.
Despite the importance of such work, the METHODS
focus on what the coach does, or should
do, will not address what the EC coachees This study was a part of a broader evalua-
do to be effective partners with their EC tion of an EC coach training program spon-
coaches. Descriptive studies that focus on the sored by the Department of Education in a
EC coachee as well as the EC coach could Midwestern state. A 3-day training session of-
help unveil “what” the quality and content of fered professional development for a group of
coaching conversations could or should be to currently employed EC coaches and focused
promote a collaborative partnership of trust, on the characteristics, behaviors, and prin-
respect, and equality. A qualitative study con- ciples important to successful EC coaching.
ducted by Knoche, Kuhn, and Eum (2013) The 65 training participants included prac-
investigated the perceptions of EC coachees titioners from across the state, representing
related to their coaching experiences. The both rural and urban communities. Partici-
24 coachees (i.e., EC practitioners and family pants represented different agencies serving
members) who participated were engaged in young children younger than 5 years and their
different EC education/intervention programs families. Reported coaching responsibilities
serving children birth to 5 years of age. The focused on the needs of family members, care
coachees reported improved skills in the areas providers, or teachers associated with one of
of classroom management, making decisions three primary program or project missions.
related to children and families, being able to These included coaching related to (a) chil-
reflect on their strengths, abilities, and needs, dren’s Individualized Family Service Plans
and being more open-minded to change as a or Individualized Education Plans for chil-
result of working with their EC coach. How- dren with developmental delays/disabilities,

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 327

(b) the global quality of classroom environ- a mean age of 37 years and were all female
ments, and/or (c) teacher implementation and self-reported as Caucasian. The educa-
of relevant strategies to advance children’s tion levels for the EC coaches ranged from
social-emotional development in follow-up some college coursework (6%) to graduate de-
to professional development sessions. The grees (35%); 47% had EC-related teaching en-
EC coach training sessions were delivered dorsements. On average, these coaches had
using both didactic lecture and small group 15 years of work experience in EC programs
discussion formats and included case study and they had an average of 5 years in the role
problem-solving opportunities. Training top- of EC coach. Coaches included nine EC edu-
ics included the role of coaches and use of ob- cators, two EC special educators, and one to
servation, joint planning, reflection, and feed- three each from the fields of psychology, so-
back during the coaching process, with ad- cial work, and occupational therapy. Table 1
ditional attention given to using questions to provides a summary of the coach demograph-
reflect or clarify, sharing information and feed- ics.
back in a helpful manner, and providing sug- Coachees were nominated by one of the
gestions that invite shared decision making. EC coaches in the study. No specific guide-
Coaches were encouraged to effectively com- lines were provided to coaches for select-
municate, establish, and maintain relation- ing their coachees. A total of 24 coachees
ships with coachees and assist coachees to be agreed to participate; three coachees shared
an “equal partner” in the coaching process. the same EC coach, but all coach–coachee
Participants were asked to outline a coaching dyads had worked together for 3–36 months
action plan before departing the training. before the study began. Table 1 summa-
In addition to typical satisfaction surveys rizes the coachee demographics. Coachees
following the workshop, participants were in- included 11 preschool teachers, 10 child
vited to participate in a series of follow-up care providers, and three parents. (Note.
interviews and activities as part of an evalu- Five preschool teachers did not return de-
ation of the EC coach training program that mographic surveys.) These female coachees
would further illuminate their understand- had a mean age of 31 years. All responding
ing and application of the training content. coachees had completed high school, with
Furthermore, the follow-up efforts provided 20% of the child care providers and 67% of the
opportunity to explore additional aspects of parents, respectively, completing some col-
coaching relationships and practices. This re- lege courses; 50% of the child care providers
port focuses on one set of data regarding the and 67% of the preschool teachers completed
conversations the volunteer EC coaches had degree programs, whereas 10% of child care
with self-selected coachees. providers and 33% of preschool teachers had
completed some graduate coursework. On av-
Participants erage, coachees who were preschool teachers
The coaching conversations used for or child care providers had 8.5 years of EC
this study were gathered from established work experience and 3.9 years tenure in their
EC coach–coachee dyads. Twenty-one EC current positions.
coaches who attended the state-sponsored
training responded to invitations to partic- Setting
ipate in post-training follow-up activities. The coaching conversations used in this
These 21 EC coaches represented a broad study reflected regularly scheduled and mutu-
range of EC contexts, settings, and pro- ally agreed-upon meeting times and places for
grams that used EC coaching to support each EC coach and coachee dyad. These meet-
the practices and professional development ings were held in a variety of private locations,
of EC teachers and/or parents of infants or including family homes and preschool class-
preschool children. The 21 EC coaches had rooms, before or after children were present.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

328 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

Table 1. Early Childhood Coach and Coachee Characteristics

Coach Characteristics N = 21

Age in years, M (SD) 37 (10)

Education
Some training beyond high school 6%
2-year degree 0%
4-year degree 35%
Some graduate coursework 24%
Graduate degree 35%
Special endorsements 47%
Experience in years, M (SD)
Early care and education 15 (10)
Early childhood coaching 5 (6)
Child Care Preschool
Providers Teachersa Parents
Coachee Characteristics (n = 10) (n = 6) (n = 3)
Age in years, M (SD) 36 (100) 30 (6) 28 (5)
Education
GED 10%
High school diploma 10% 33%
Training beyond high school 10% 66%
Vocational certificate 40%
2-year degree 10% 67%
4-year degree 10% 17%
Graduate coursework 17%
Current CDA 20% 50% N/A
Experience in years, M (SD)
Early care and education 10 (9) 6 (2) N/A
Current position 5 (7) 3 (3) N/A

Note. CDA = child development associate; N/A = not applicable.

a Five preschool teachers did not return demographic surveys.

Routine meetings were scheduled one to four Bainter, 2012) was developed to provide in-
times monthly and varied by program re- formation about the behaviors exhibited by
quirements and needs and typically lasted EC coaches and their coachees during typ-
30–60 min. The focus of the conversations ical coaching meetings/conversations con-
and meeting agendas varied as a function of ducted for the purpose of promoting new
the program goals. For example, some dyads or enhanced skills and knowledge in the
discussed results of recent observations of teacher/parent. Although it is recognized that
program quality whereas others focused their many factors influence the coaching process,
conversations primarily on strategies to min- the 13 coach behavior codes chosen for the
imize children’s social problems or promote ECCC coding system reflected the work of
overall development. Rush and Shelden (2011) and Friedman et al.
(2012) and were intended to represent the
Measures core components of coaching as conceptu-
The Early Childhood Coaching Conver- alized during the EC training program while
sations (ECCC) coding system (Knoche & also capturing relevant behaviors that might

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 329

be observed but not explicitly covered in the was found to be a reliable measure (K = .76)
training. The intent was to provide a picture of across coach and coachee behaviors.
coaching interactions between coaches and
Analysis
coachees and represent their interrelatedness.
The bulk of the codes are coach behavior Because of the variable length of each
codes because they were the main focus of the coaching session, descriptive statistics were
training. The purpose of developing codes for used to summarize the mean per minute rates
the six coachee behaviors was to assess the of observed coach and coachee conversa-
possible relationship between coaching be- tional behaviors. Pearson product–moment
haviors on coachees’ participation in the ses- correlation coefficients were computed to as-
sion. Table 2 describes the coach and coachee sess the relationships between observed be-
behaviors as defined in the ECCC coding sys- haviors of EC coaches and their coachees. No
tem. dyadic discourse analyses were pursued.

Procedures RESULTS
Each coach–coachee dyad was videotaped
once in a regularly scheduled meeting time Coach behaviors
and location, as arranged by the EC coaches. Figure 1 provides a summary bar graph of
All 24 videotaped coaching sessions were the mean rate of observed conversation be-
viewed by a trained reliable coder. Initially, haviors across all EC coaches; dotted lines
the coder viewed each videotape for 5 min represent the range of individual rates for
to allow for an introduction to the context of the 21 coaches. Verbal acknowledgment,
the particular interaction between the coach nonverbal acknowledgment, and clarifies in-
and the coachee. The video was then viewed tent were the most frequently noted coach-
from start to finish, stopping every 2 min to ing conversation behaviors. These behaviors
code behaviors listed on the ECCC, for both occurred at rates of once every 1–1.5 min.
coach and coachee as present/not present. By Encourages connections between conversa-
coding behaviors across discrete intervals, an tional topics, establishes/reestablishes rela-
aggregate of behaviors was analyzed, as well tionships, uses feedback, and shares spe-
as patterns of behaviors that occurred at differ- cific observations were all less frequently ob-
ent intervals during the coaching session. Re- served behaviors in coaches, at rates of once
sults are reported for the group of 21 coaches every 5–10 min. Other behaviors, such as
and group of 24 coachees in mean rate per shares information, asks questions for in-
minute per group. put/reflection, introduces new topics, pro-
motes joint planning, and shares inferential
Reliability observations, were moderately used at rates
Two independent coders were trained to of once every 2–4 min.
use the ECCC coding system and were re- The frequently observed behaviors that
quired to be 80% reliable across all 19 codes. were taught in the EC coach training program
To prepare for coding, all coders partici- were use of questions (to reflect/clarify),
pated in multiple face-to-face training sessions sharing information, providing suggestions,
and many individual feedback sessions dur- and joint planning. Although the coaches
ing which the focus was (1) learning the were taught about the use of feedback and
codes with their corresponding definitions, inferential observations, the use of these be-
(2) learning how to record data, and (3) cod- haviors were less frequently observed and
ing an entire tape from start to finish. Each showed greater variability across this group
coder coded two consecutive practice tapes of coaches. On the contrary, the frequently
to reliability before coding the data set for observed behaviors, verbal and nonverbal
this study. Overall, the ECCC coding system acknowledgment, were not explicitly taught

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

330 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

Table 2. Behavior Definitions for the Early Childhood Coaching Conversations Coding
System

Coach Behaviors
1. Establishes/reestablishes relationships: Coach initiates or responds to meaningful interactions
and conversational exchanges that convey support and care to the teacher/parent typically in
the form of personal information and subjects outside the bounds of the established topic for the
coaching session.
2. Introduces new topics: Coach uses statements or comments that direct or initiate the
conversation or topic. This information is not related to teacher/parent input or behaviors.
3. Verbal acknowledgment: Coach comments on, affirms, and/or acknowledges teacher/parent
observations, behaviors, ideas, etc., within the established topic(s). Specific behaviors may or
may not be included and restating/rephrasing may be used, all for the purpose of recognizing the
teacher’s/parent’s feelings or input.
4. Nonverbal acknowledgment: Coach demonstrates active listening behaviors nonverbal (e.g.,
head nodding, leaning in, eye raises).
5. Invites input and reflection: Coach creates opportunities, including when introducing new
topics, for the teacher/parent to share perceptions, input, thoughts, etc. They are typically in the
form of questions and supportive statements, generally exploratory and open-ended.
6. Clarifies intent: Coach uses a yes/no or other type of close-ended question to clarify intent,
feelings, and/or check for understanding.
7. Shares inferential observations: Coach shares observations of time spent with the
teacher/parent with the child/children in home/classroom using inferences.
8. Shares specific observations: Coach shares observations of time spent with the teacher/parent
with the child/children in home/classroom using descriptions or documentation.
Statements/descriptions describe specific behaviors that were seen and do not include the
coach’s opinions or perceptions.
9. Shares information: Coach provides information related to a question or request that may be
direct or implied on the part of the teacher/parent.
10. Uses feedback: Coach uses statements or comments that provide an explanation or rationale that
adds new information for the teacher/parent, including the use of specific examples. These
statements/comments go beyond an affirmation/observation and include specific reference to
the child, teacher behavior, or particular situation.
11. Provides suggestions: Coach provides an explicit suggestion for something the teacher/parent
could do, or something the coach could do, which is related to the current topic/conversation.
The suggestion is typically in the form of a statement but could be preceded by “I wonder what
would happen if . . . .”
12. Encourages connection: Coach encourages a clear connection to previous conversations by
referencing a previously discussed topic, plan, or action.
13. Promotes joint planning: Coach asks questions, clarifies points, and recaps or summarizes
actions or ideas that include reference to and are clearly for the purpose of planning for what
will happen once the coaching conversation has ended, including who will do what, by when,
which of these things that we discussed, what are the roles, etc.
Coachee Behaviors
1. Participates in relationship: Coachee participates, either by initiating or by responding to
meaningful interactions and conversational exchanges with the coach, typically in the form of
personal information and subjects outside of the bounds of the established topic for the
coaching session.
2. Introduces new topics: Coachee brings up topics, concerns, priorities, or requests, related or
unrelated to, the current topic.
(continues)

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 331

Table 2. Behavior Definitions for the Early Childhood Coaching Conversations Coding
System (Continued)

3. Asks new questions/makes requests: These behaviors can be in any form, i.e., questions,
statements, or implied requests related to the current topic.
4. Contributes to or elaborates on the coach’s input using statements or comments to add
information, share opinions, and/or rationale or describe current behaviors and activities.
5. Verbal acknowledgment: Agrees to or acknowledges the coach’s input in the form of short
phrases or a few words but does not elaborate further.
6. Proposes new ideas: As a result of the coaching conversation, coachee uses descriptions,
statements, or requests that clearly demonstrate a behavior, action, or attitude change as a
function or result of the conversation.

in the EC coach training program, nor were The coachees most frequently contributed to
the less frequently observed behaviors, estab- or elaborated on coach input and used ver-
lishes relationships and encourages connec- bal acknowledgment behaviors during con-
tions between conversational topics. versations with their coaches. These two be-
haviors were noted at rates of once every
Coachee behaviors minute. In contrast, coachees asked ques-
Figure 2 provides a summary bar graph of tions/made requests, proposed new ideas,
the mean rate of observed conversation be- or participated in the coaching relation-
haviors across all coachees during one video- ship less frequently (i.e., once every 4–6
taped session with their respective coaches. min) and introduced new topics during their

Figure 1. Mean rate per minute of observed early childhood coach behaviors.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

332 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

Figure 2. Mean rate per minute of observed coachee behaviors.

conversations with the EC coaches at mean tion of new topics and coachees’ introduc-
rates of once every 17 min. tion of new topics, coaches’ use of feedback
and coachees’ proposal of new ideas, and
Relationship between coach and coaches’ sharing observations and coachees’
coachee behaviors use of questions /requests.
A number of significant associations were
noted between coach and coachee behaviors DISCUSSION
(Table 3). A large positive association was
found between the coachees’ participation in This exploratory study highlights the con-
the coaching relationship and the coaches’ versational behaviors that were used by EC
use of behaviors to establish/reestablish the coaches and coachees during regularly sched-
relationship. More specifically, the coachees’ uled meetings. The innovative ECCC coding
contributions to or elaborations on the system helped focus observations on coach
coaches’ input and their proposal of new and coachee behaviors during coaching in-
ideas were positively associated with the teractions and document presence/absence
coaches’ behaviors focused on establishing of behaviors, including those introduced in
these relationships. Similarly, moderate but the EC coach training program. These ob-
positive associations were noted for the served behaviors reflect some of the nuances
coachees’ participation in the relationship associated with the coaching process and
and coaches’ engagement in joint planning; help describe specific conversation behav-
these coach behaviors also were associated iors that may enhance the coachees’ com-
with the coachees’ proposal of new ideas. petence and confidence to engage in col-
Coaches’ verbal acknowledgments, clarifi- laborative practices with EC coaches. Bi-
cations, and suggestions were all moder- variate correlations provide a hint of pos-
ately associated with the coachees’ contri- sible associations between the EC coaches’
butions/elaborations, verbal acknowledg- behaviors and coachees’ participation during
ments, and use of questions. conversations.
Negative, moderate, significant associations There were key characteristics of produc-
were found between the coaches’ introduc- tive coaching conversations evident in the

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 333

Table 3. Relationship Between Observed Coach and Coachee Behaviors

Observed Coachee Behaviors

Asks
Observed Participates Introduces Verbal Questions/ Proposes
Coach in New Contributes/ Acknowledg- Makes New
Behaviors Relationship Topics Elaborates ment Requests Ideas

Establishes/ .88*** .42* .59**

reestablishes
relationships
Promotes joint .50* .46*
planning
Introduces − .48*
new topics
Verbal .47*
acknowledg-
ment
Clarifies intent .39* .41*
Provides .41* .41*
suggestions
Uses feedback − .42*
Shares specific − .35†
observations

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (only significant associations listed).

coded interactions. Both EC coaches’ and use of these behaviors is thought to be critical
coachees’ frequent use of verbal and non- during conversations to help both EC coaches
verbal acknowledgment behaviors during and coachees stay engaged and collabora-
interactions suggest that interactions were tively pursue solutions to mutually agreed-
not unidirectional but two-way and included upon goals (Rush & Shelden, 2011). The
listening as well as speaking for both play- coachees spent the least amount of time ask-
ers and made a climate for relational help- ing questions/making requests and propos-
giving possible (Dunst & Trivette, 2009; ing new ideas. Currently, there is no evidence
McWilliam, 2010). The EC coaches’ ability about “what” behaviors coachees must en-
to share information, in particular, and the gage in during interactions with EC coaches
coachees’ responses to and elaborations on to foster partnerships. However, we can hy-
EC coaches’ comments or questions support pothesize here that these behaviors would be
reports of coachee preferences for collabo- useful for “leveling the playing field” for a
rative practices that can build their compe- shared ownership of problems and goals and
tence and confidence as an equal partner a decision-making process during interactions
in the coaching process (Friedman et al., (Dunst & Trivette, 1996).
2012). Overall, the results indicate great variabil-
On the contrary, some key coaching be- ity in the use of conversation behaviors. The
haviors occurred with less frequency. The variability may be explained by (a) the individ-
EC coaches spent less time inviting ques- ual nature and history of each coach–coachee
tions that promote reflection, sharing obser- dyad, (b) the primary topic of conversation
vations, and engaging in joint planning. The in each videotaped session, (c) the goals of

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

334 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

the specific EC coaching program, (d) individ- tive relationship can be built to seek mutual
ual coachees’ needs and wants, and (e) each pleasure in supporting children’s learning and
coach’s and coachee’s comfort level in the development.
use of these behaviors as part of the coaching Furthermore, the EC coaches’ promotion
process. However, a look at the most promi- of joint planning positively related to
nent coach and coachee behaviors observed, coachees’ participation in the relationship
such as frequent use of verbal and nonver- and proposal of new ideas during conversa-
bal acknowledgment behaviors during inter- tions. Engaging in interactions that involve
actions, the EC coaches’ ability to share in- joint planning (i.e., discussing who will
formation, in particular, and the coachees’ do what, when and by when, and what
responses to and elaborations on EC coach roles each player will assume) helps build a
comments or questions, suggest that dyads systematic road map about next steps that EC
were demonstrating some of the behaviors coaches and coachees can follow. Inviting
promoted in the training and literature as ad- the coachees’ perspectives in this process
vantageous to successful collaborative part- can help coaches identify coachees’ priorities
nerships (Dunst & Trivette, 1996; Friedman for support, get them talking more about
et al., 2012; Friend & Cook, 2010; McWilliam, their ideas and experiences, and help them
2010; Rush & Shelden, 2011). Questions re- develop a sense of ownership for a shared
main, however, about how frequently or in decision-making process.
what combination each of the characteristic Early childhood coaches’ use of behaviors
behaviors should be used during coaching such as sharing specific observations and
conversations to effectively engage in rela- feedback, however, was negatively associated
tionship building, shared ownership, and true with coachees asking questions/making re-
partnership. quests and proposing new ideas during these
The correlations observed in this ex- videotaped coaching sessions. Although shar-
ploratory study between coach and coachee ing observations and using feedback are cru-
behaviors further support the possibility that cial components of the coaching conversa-
specific behaviors can yield active partici- tion process (Rush & Shelden, 2011), the
pation by both partners during scheduled results raise possible questions about these
meetings and foster collaborative practices. EC coaches’ frequency, intensity, and tone of
Early childhood coach behaviors that focused sharing observations and using feedback dur-
on establishing relationships positively re- ing coaching conversations. Feedback on ob-
lated to coachees’ proposal of new ideas servations can be effectively utilized to fos-
and contributing/elaborating on coaches’ ter coachees’ participation and engagement.
input. Therefore, by using interactions and Specifically, if done in a manner that reflects
conversational exchanges that convey sup- objectivity and promotes shared reflection,
port and care, EC coaches can possibly build the use of observational data and feedback
an environment of trust, respect, and sense could invite coachees’ contributions.
of equality during their interactions. This It must be acknowledged, however, that
may help coachees become more willing, the small and select sample used for this
active, and confident participants. Engaging study limits generalization of findings and the
in “small talk,” in the form of sharing per- data must be interpreted cautiously, given the
sonal information, is often associated with coaches’ self-selection process to videotape a
establishing relationships and can possibly coaching session with their chosen coachee.
level the playing field and invite coachees’ Furthermore, we have no data with which to
perspectives. In turn, coaches can recog- compare our findings in terms of frequency
nize what coachees have to offer and en- of conversational behaviors, so we are lim-
able coachees to enrich the relationship and ited to describing only higher and lower rates
problem-solving process. Thus, a collabora- of occurrence for this sample. In addition,

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

Coaching Conversations 335

the current study did not explore the specific action plans and practice/feedback sessions
qualitative nature of coaching conversations. for improvement could prove beneficial. Pre-
Larger samples and more detailed analyses liminary efforts with such a process involv-
are needed to more specifically describe the ing a subset of these coaches are promis-
pattern of coach–coachee interactions and ing (Jayaraman, Kuhn, Bainter, & Marvin,
their relationship to successful partnerships 2014).
for children with disabilities. Future analyses Furthermore, data such as those reported in
are needed to investigate whether EC coaches this study may guide us in educating EC teach-
display different coaching conversation be- ers and parents on how they might participate
haviors given differences in their coaching in coaching sessions to maximize the coach-
session topics, and whether coachees dis- ing process. This exploratory study helps
play different conversation behaviors, given bridge a gap in the literature by investigating
differences in their roles (EC teacher vs. the nuances associated with the coaching con-
parent). versation process and associations between
Rich observational data on coaching con- the EC coaches’ behaviors and coachees’
versation behaviors can have positive impli- participation during conversations. There is,
cations, however, and inform our understand- however, a need for a larger conceptual frame-
ing of what to include in professional de- work of effective EC partnerships to under-
velopment supports for EC coaches work- stand (a) what qualities and skills coachees
ing across a range of EC contexts and how bring to effective EC partnerships, (b) what
to design training content for those new factors influence successful partnerships be-
to EC coaching. The current study comple- tween EC coaches and coachees, and (c) what
mented previous studies that showed not only contributes to the necessary synergy needed
the benefit but also limitations of workshop- for the benefit of children and families. The
only professional development efforts be- current study begins to illuminate the path to-
cause not all the behaviors highlighted in ward such a framework. Future research that
the EC coach training program were evident focuses on the contributions and challenges
in the coaches’ interactions with coachees. of the EC coachee as well as the EC coach can
Follow-up coaching sessions that focus on help further our understanding of effective EC
the individual coach behaviors observed and partnerships.

REFERENCES

Basu, S., Salisbury, C., & Thorkildsen, T. A. (2010). Mea- .cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-

suring collaborative consultation practices in natural Professional-Preparation/CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-
environments. Journal of Early Intervention, 32, Specialty-Sets
127–150. Dinnebeil, L., & McInerney, W. (2011). A guide to itin-
Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. (2005). Consultation in early erant early childhood special education services.
childhood settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Cambray-Engstrom, E., & Salisbury, C. (2010). An ex- Division for Early Childhood. (2009). DEC code of ethics.
ploratory case study of providers’ collaborative Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/papers
consultation practices with Latina mothers dur- Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended
ing home visits. Infants & Young Children, 23, practices in early intervention/early childhood spe-
262–274. cial education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.
Chang, F., Early, D., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices
teacher preparation in special education at 2- and Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (1996). Empowerment, effec-
4- year institutions of higher education. Journal of tive helpgiving practices and family-centered care.
Early Intervention, 27(2), 110–124. Pediatric Nursing, 22, 334–343.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Specialty set Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (2009). Let’s Be Pals: An
standards for initial early childhood special educa- evidence-based approach to professional develop-
tion/early intervention. Retrieved from http://www ment. Infants & Young Children, 20(3), 164–176.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC IYC-D-15-00013 August 25, 2015 20:54

336 INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2015

Fox, L., Hemmeter, M., Snyder, P., Binder, D., & Clarke, S. development intervention on Head Start teachers and
(2011). Coaching early childhood special educators children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102,
to implement a comprehensive model for promoting 299–312.
young children’s social-emotional competence. Top- Romski, M., Sevcik, R., Adamson, L., Smith, A., Cheslock,
ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(3), M., & Bakeman, R. (2011). Parent perceptions of tod-
178–192. dlers with developmental delays before and after par-
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collabora- ticipation in parent-coached language intervention.
tion skills for school professionals (6th ed.). Upper American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 20(2), 111–118.
Friedman, M., Woods, J., & Salisbury, C. (2012). Caregiver Rush, D., & Shelden, M. (2011). The early child-
coaching strategies for early intervention providers: hood coaching handbook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Moving toward operational definitions. Infants & Brookes.
Young Children, 25(1), 62–82. Rush, D., Shelden, M., & Hanft, B. (2003). Coaching
Hanft, B., Rush, D., & Shelden, M. (2004). Coaching fam- families and colleagues: A process for collaboration
ilies and colleagues in early childhood. Baltimore, in natural settings. Infants & Young Children, 16,
MD: Paul H. Brookes. 33–47.
Jayaraman, G., Kuhn, M., Bainter, S., & Marvin, C. (2014). Salisbury, C., Woods, J., & Copeland, T. (2010). Provider
Effective strategies for supporting competence in perspectives on adopting and using family centered
early childhood coaches and coachees. Paper pre- services in natural environments. Topics in Early
sented at 30th Annual International Conference on Childhood Special Education, 30(3), 132–147.
Young Children with Special Needs and Their Fami- Sheridan, S., Edwards, C., Marvin, C., & Knoche, L.
lies, St. Louis, MO. (2009). Professional development in early childhood
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement programs: Process issues and research needs. Early
through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandra, VA: Education and Development, 20(3), 377–401.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- Sheridan, S., Knoche, L., Kupzyk, K., Edwards, C., & Mar-
ment. vin, C. (2011). A randomized trial examining the ef-
Knoche, L., & Bainter, S. (2012). Early childhood coach- fects of parent engagement on early language and
ing conversation codes. Unpublished manuscript, literacy: The Getting Ready intervention. Journal of
Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, School Psychology, 49, 361–383.
Families and Schools, University of Nebraska– Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M., & McLaughlin, T. (2011).
Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. Professional development in early childhood inter-
Knoche, L., Kuhn, M., & Eum, J. (2013). “More time. More vention: Where we stand on the silver anniversary
showing. More helping. That’s how it sticks”: The of PL 99-457. Journal of Early Intervention, 33,
perspectives of early childhood coachees. Infants & 357–370.
Young Children, 26(4), 349–365. Snyder, P., & Wolfe, B. (2008). The big three process
Martinez-Beck, I., & Zaslow, M. (2006). Introduction: The components of effective professional development:
context for critical issues in early childhood profes- Needs assessment, evaluation, and follow-up. In P.
sional development. In M. Zaslow, & I. Martinez- Winton, J. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Practi-
Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood pro- cal approaches to early childhood professional de-
fessional development (pp. 1–16). Baltimore, MD: velopment: Evidence, strategies, and resources (pp.
Paul H. Brooks. 13–52). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
McWilliam, P. J. (2010). Talking to families. In R. A. Trotter, Y. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting
McWilliam (Ed.), Working with families of young professional development programs. Delta Kappa
children with special needs (pp. 127–146). New Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8–13.
York, NY: Guilford Press. Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Vick-Whittaker, J., &
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a Lavelle, B. (2010). Emerging research on early child-
mentoring-coaching model on teacher professional hood professional development. In S. B. Neuman,
development. Early Childhood Education Journal, & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the
36, 19–24. early childhood classroom: Proven models and
Powell, D., Diamond, K., Burchinal, M., & Koehler, key principles (pp. 19–47). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
M. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional Brookes.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.