ECoaching Across Routines to Enhance Teachers’ Use of Modeling

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of eCoaching on two special education teachers’ use of modeling strategies across child-led, teacher-led, and mealtime routines. A multiple-probe, single-case design was used to determine the effects of eCoaching on teachers’ use of three modeling strategies. Each of the three strategies was a method to model language for children, and they were randomized to three different routines. Results suggest that eCoaching increased teachers’ use of modeling strategies and that eCoaching is a socially valid intervention. Considerations for practice and future research are discussed.

A Monte Carlo evaluation of masked visual analysis in response‐guided versus fixed‐criteria multiple‐baseline designs

“…Those incorporating MVA will also need to alter their reporting of results to indicate that MVA was conducted during the ongoing visual analysis and/or summary analysis, and to provide the pvalue obtained in the summary analysis. More details on the incorporation and reporting of MVA are available through a listing and illustration of procedural steps (Ferron & Jones, 2006), a process flow chart with multiple examples (Ferron & Levin, 2014), and reports of single-case research studies that have applied MVA (e.g., Coogle, Rahn, Ottley, & Storie, 2016;DeLoatche, 2015;McKeown, Kimball, & Ledford, 2015).…”

Bug-in-Ear eCoaching: Impacts on Novice Early Childhood Special Education Teachers

“…We used a single-case, multiple-probe design across participants to examine the effects of BIE eCoaching on novice ECSE teachers' use of communication strategies (Gast, Lloyd, & Ledford, 2014;Horner & Baer, 1978). We selected a probe design because our previous research indicated teachers were unlikely to begin using these strategies without intervention (Coogle et al, 2017(Coogle et al, , 2015(Coogle et al, , 2016 and probe designs require only intermittent data collection during baseline. To meet What Works Clearinghouse (2014) design standards, sessions across participants and phases were concurrent.…”

“…The coach (i.e., the first and third authors) delivered at least six 6-min eCoaching sessions to each teacher. The session length of 6 min was chosen based on the amount of time the teachers felt all focus children could engage in an activity, and our previous research suggesting that feedback delivered for a short duration could be effective in improving practice (Coogle et al, 2017(Coogle et al, , 2015(Coogle et al, , 2016. During eCoaching, the following pieces of technology were used: iPad, Skype™, Bluetooth® device, laptop computer, and ECamm™ (for Mac) or Evaer™ (for PC) software.…”

A comparison of two types of remote performance feedback on treatment integrity

“…In other cases, the intervention included several strategies, but each strategy occurred independently. For example, Coogle et al (2016) investigated the treatment integrity of naturalistic teaching which involved three independent components, expansions, parallel talk, and self-talk and Barton and Wolery (2007) evaluated the use of two independent strategies of expansion and specific praise. In these studies, any demonstration of either of the strategies was counted as an incidence of accurate delivery of the intervention.…”

“…A frequency measure was used in the studies that involved interventions comprising of independent components. Of the eight studies that used frequency counts, five studies evaluated the number of correct use of the strategies per observation (Barton & Wolery, 2007;Coogle et al, 2016;Hall et al, 2010;Neely et al, 2016) and four studies converted the number of occurrence to rate such as the number of correct uses of the strategies per minute (Artman-Meeker et al, 2017;Goodman et al, 2008;Scheeler et al, 2018). In one study, Scheeler et al (2018) aimed to increase the use of specific praise, they reported the percentage of specific praise to the total praise statements, in addition to rate.…”