Exploring the Effectiveness of a Virtual Coaching Program to Support Staff Working at Families as First Teachers Playgroups in the Remote Northern Territory, Australia

Abstract

Coaching is an important form of professional development for the early childhood education and care (ECEC) workforce. However, educators working in remote contexts do not always have access to this type of support. This paper explores the effectiveness of a virtual (online and telephone) coaching program focusing on the implementation of evidence-informed Conversational Reading strategies in supported playgroups for Aboriginal families in the Northern Territory of Australia. Fourteen Family Educators and Family Liaison Officers across ten Families as First Teachers playgroups in the Northern Territory participated in the coaching program over twelve months. Coaching records, planning documents, participant feedback, and video recordings of participants’ practice were analysed to explore the impact and acceptability of the coaching program. The findings indicate that participation in the cycle of virtual coaching, planning, and reflection supported participants in implementing evidence-informed teaching strategies, offering language-rich experiences to children frequently and with increased fidelity, and engaging with families about their use of these strategies in the home. The model of coaching developed shows promise for wider implementation in ECEC contexts, particularly in remote communities where access to high-quality professional learning and development can be limited.

1. Introduction

High-quality early learning programs have the potential to support children’s development and learning, both in the short- and long-term (Ramey et al., 2012; Melhuish et al., 2015; Goldfeld et al., 2016). International research indicates that responsive adult-child interactions are central to program quality and exert the greatest positive influence on children’s developmental outcomes (Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000; Ramey & Ramey, 2005; Slot et al., 2015; Burchinal et al., 2016). However, not all children have the same access to early childhood education programs, with children from disadvantaged communities often missing out (O’Connor et al., 2016; Australian Government, 2020). As a result, many children fall behind in relation to key indicators of cognitive ability, health, and social wellbeing by the time they start school, as measured by Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) data (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2022). AEDC data is collected using the Australian version of the Early Development Instrument (AvEDI), adapted from Canada (Janus & Offord, 2007). Based on their knowledge of individual children in their class, teachers respond to approximately 100 questions across five domains of child development.

Due to centuries of systemic barriers and racism arising from Australia’s colonial past, Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are among the most disadvantaged children in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017; De Vincentiis et al., 2019; Moodie et al., 2019). AEDC data shows that just over one in five (22%) of Australian children who started school in 2021 were developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains of development; for Aboriginal children, it was approximately two in five (42.3%) (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2022). These results are reflective of the complex barriers that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children face, including greater socio-economic disadvantage. It is also important to note that the AEDC is a standardised instrument, which, while valuable, is based on Western social and cultural constructs of education and thus may not adequately capture the diverse language and cultural norms that can significantly impact a child’s development (Brinkman et al., 2009). Offering culturally responsive, high-quality early educational programs to support young children provides opportunities to close the gap between Aboriginal children’s learning and development and the broader population. Australian evidence demonstrates the promise of high-quality, culturally informed, evidence-based early educational experiences to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory (Arcos Holzinger & Biddle, 2015; Leske et al., 2015; Guthridge et al., 2016; Kellard & Paddon, 2016). Aboriginal children and families, however, face multiple barriers to engaging in early learning programs, and there are lower rates of participation in preschool programs among Aboriginal children (OECD, 2017; Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC), 2012).

While there is scant empirical research on early childhood education programs designed specifically for Aboriginal children (Elek et al., 2020), it is clear that early learning opportunities for Aboriginal children must be provided in a way that is both culturally responsive and evidence-based. This includes working in partnership with Aboriginal parents and carers as their children’s first teachers to create culturally safe and meaningful places of learning, as well as supporting the use of first languages and the incorporation of cultural knowledges and practices in programs (Best Start Resource Centre, 2010; Gapany et al., 2021; Guenther et al., 2019; Krakouer, 2016; Page et al., 2019; Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC), 2012; Trudgett & Grace, 2011).

Evidence suggests supported playgroups can promote child and family engagement in learning and help bridge the gap in early learning opportunities for Aboriginal children (Elek et al., 2020; Gapany et al., 2021; Page et al., 2019). Supported playgroups provide the opportunity for facilitators to support and model adult-child interactions that foster children’s development in culturally appropriate ways, in partnership with families (Gapany et al., 2021; Page et al., 2019). To provide high-quality learning opportunities, early childhood educators and facilitators of supported playgroups need adequate training and support. To enable staff to embed new, evidence-based teaching practices, research points to the importance of providing ongoing support, such as coaching, which provides repeated opportunities for individualised feedback and support (Landry et al., 2006; Wasik et al., 2006; R. Pianta et al., 2007). Coaching has been found to be effective in supporting educators’ and Aboriginal families’ implementation of evidence-based teaching strategies (Eadie et al., 2020; Page et al., 2021).

The delivery of coaching in a virtual (online) format has been shown to have outcomes for teachers and children comparable to that of face-to-face coaching (Kraft et al., 2018; Snell et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2022). Virtual delivery of programs may be of value when seeking to reach a greater number of teachers, reaching teachers in areas where there is no local coach available, or when it is desirable to have a coach who is not the teacher’s supervisor or evaluator (Kraft et al., 2018; Philipsen et al., 2019). Examples of such programs include the ‘MyTeachingPartner’ intervention, which offered a 14-week training course (42 h in total) with a focus on teacher-child interactions followed by the coach providing written comments on video recordings (Mashburn et al., 2010; Early et al., 2017; R. Pianta et al., 2017), and the Classroom Links to Early Literacy program, which offered 16 hours of workshop content followed by coaching offered via written feedback on videos (Powell et al., 2010).

Families as First Teachers (FaFT) Playgroups

Families as First Teachers (FaFT) playgroups were established in the Northern Territory in 2009 in remote Aboriginal communities. Today, the FaFT program aims to improve the developmental outcomes of young Aboriginal children in remote and urban areas in the Northern Territory by providing access to high-quality educational programs and building parents’ confidence to be their children’s first teachers. The playgroups are supported by a Family Educator (FE) (an early childhood teacher) and a Family Liaison Officer (FLO) (a local Aboriginal community member with early childhood experience and expertise). FaFT staff work in partnership with mothers and young children to deliver a culturally responsive and evidence-based early educational program to build young children’s identity, languages, and cultural knowledge.

The Abecedarian Approach Australia (3a) program is an evidence-based educational program. It is an Australian adaptation of the (American) Abecedarian Approach, which has been demonstrated to positively influence young children’s developmental outcomes in the short- and long-term (Ramey & Ramey, 2005; Campbell et al., 2008; Ramey et al., 2012). Following a proof of concept and adaptation of the Learning Games^® for remote Aboriginal contexts (Page et al., 2019), the 3a program has been the educational platform used at FaFT playgroups for over a decade (Page et al., 2019). The approach is informed by theories of learning and child development, and the strategies can be learnt by educators with a range of qualifications, as well as by parents and carers. Recent Australian studies have demonstrated that the 3a strategies can be culturally adapted and can effectively support educators, families, and children, including Aboriginal educators in the Northern Territory (Brookes & Tayler, 2016; Page et al., 2019; Eadie et al., 2020; Elek et al., 2020; Gapany et al., 2021).

The Current Study

The current study builds on the findings of a previous study (Page et al., 2019) that explored the benefits of supporting FaFT playgroups in two remote Northern Territory communities for child and family outcomes. This study focuses on the implementation of virtual coaching for FEs and FLOs to support their use of Conversational Reading, one of the four (3a) strategies used in the FaFT programs. Conversational Reading is an approach to book engagement based on joint attention, which incorporates a three-step adult-child interaction strategy called 3S—See, Show, Say—targeting children’s receptive and expressive language skills. The See step focuses on the establishment of joint attention, with the child expected to respond by shifting their gaze to look at a picture when encouraged by the adult naming and/or pointing to a picture. The Show step focuses on comprehension and requires the child to point to images in a book in response to an adult asking the child to identify an image (e.g., “Where is the dog?”). The Say step focuses on language production from the child in response to a question asked by the adult (e.g., “What is next to the banana?”). Implementing the 3S strategy frequently and with fidelity has been shown to support children’s language development, particularly for children identified as developmentally vulnerable (Brookes & Tayler, 2016; Page et al., 2019).

The current study developed a virtual model of coaching focusing on the 3S strategy, enabling access for FaFT staff who were living and working in remote Aboriginal communities. Coaching was offered to participants via online annotated feedback on videos of their practice and telephone coaching. It was anticipated that the use of video for reflection during coaching, paired with explicit goals to direct reflective practice, would support participants to focus on specific elements of their practice and to strengthen their implementation of evidence-based Conversational Reading strategies (Brookes et al., 2017; R. Pianta et al., 2017). Specifically, the study sought to address the following research questions regarding the impact of virtual coaching on the use of Conversational Reading in FaFT playgroup settings:

• How did the virtual coaching model impact participants’ levels of mastery and fidelity in the implementation of Conversational Reading strategies?
• How did participants engage with the virtual coaching model, and what were their perceptions of the model overall?

2. Materials and Methods

To address the research questions, the study employed a mixed-methods approach. The research was approved by the relevant human research ethics committee prior to the study commencing. All participants provided informed consent to participate.

2.1. Participant Recruitment

FEs and FLOs from FaFT sites were invited to participate in the study. Recruitment was led by the Northern Territory Department of Education, and sites were identified from among existing FaFT sites using the following criteria: sites with stability in staffing, program delivery and family attendance; sites that self-identified a need for improvement in how to coach parents in the use of 3a; and, sites that had the capacity to engage in the study. Participants provided informed consent and were included in the analysis if they submitted at least two videos during their engagement with the study.

2.2. The Coaching Program

Participants were provided with a coaching program delivered virtually by researchers with extensive experience researching with FaFT communities. The coaching program was offered to participants who had already completed 18 h of face-to-face 3a training and were certified 3a practitioners (see Page et al., 2019). The coaching model was adapted from the aforementioned ‘MyTeachingPartner’ (MTP) intervention (R. Pianta et al., 2017), which demonstrated positive effects on the quality of teacher-child interactions following repeated cycles of internet-mediated interaction between an educator and coach. The logic model for MTP effects is based on evidence suggesting that providing opportunities for educators to understand, identify, and practise effective interactions and to analyse one’s own interactions provides a cognitive framework that can guide teachers’ practice and reduce cognitive overload (Hamre et al., 2014; R. C. Pianta et al., 2021).

The coaching program was adapted to focus specifically on the use of Conversational Reading strategies and involved up to eight five-week cycles. As depicted in Figure 1, each cycle involved participants planning a Conversational Reading experience for a child attending FaFT, video-recording their implementation of the plan, uploading the footage via a secure online platform, receiving online written feedback from their coaches, and a telephone coaching session, which included the development of an action plan to guide their implementation for the next cycle. If the conversation took place in a local Aboriginal language, the participant was asked to provide an English translation. Within approximately two weeks of uploading their video and after the provision of feedback, participants engaged in a coaching session with the researchers by teleconference. The FLO from each site attended the teleconference with the FE (although the FLOs were proficient in English, the FEs were fluent in English and able to provide language support if necessary). Together, they were encouraged to view the feedback on their video prior to the teleconference. The teleconferences began with a discussion about each participant’s Conversational Reading plan and their implementation of Conversational Reading captured in the video. Coaches gave feedback on the relational and instructional aspects of the Conversational Reading interaction, and participants’ use of the 3S strategy was emphasised. Feedback provided used a strengths-based approach, designed to build on participants’ achievements and encourage ongoing improvements. Participants were invited to reflect on their Conversational Reading planning and implementation and the feedback they had received. By the end of each session, a clear goal for future practice was collaboratively developed. These goals typically focused on the use of specific parts of the 3S strategy to support fidelity of implementation and provide individualised support for a child. After each coaching cycle, a Coaching Record Summary (see Supplementary Material) was completed by the coaches for each participant, which documented findings in relation to interaction quality, implementation fidelity and mastery of Conversational Reading, and participants’ engagement in the coaching process. A portion of the Coaching Record Summary was then sent to the participant, which captured a summary of the findings and an action plan documenting the contents of the coaching discussion to inform their subsequent practice.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

2.3.1. Mastery and Fidelity of Implementation

For each coaching cycle, researchers used a study-designed rubric to document their assessment of each participant’s mastery of the skills and knowledge to implement Conversational Reading, the fidelity of Conversational Reading implementation, and the quality of the interactions during Conversational Reading. Conversational Reading implementation data were assessed in two ways: Use of 3S (See, Show, Say), which documents each participant’s use of the 3S strategy; and frequency of 3S, which is captured through a numerical count of each instance of the steps in the 3S strategy being used. Use of 3S was rated on a scale of 0–4, where 0 indicates no use and 4 indicates that the participant uses all levels of 3S and moves between them to scaffold learning. A rating of 4 represents adaptive implementation with increased flexibility that is responsive to the child. The fidelity with which each participant was implementing the 3S strategy was also documented through the coach’s annotations of video recordings demonstrating participants’ practice and via written feedback from the coach summarising participants’ use of the 3S strategies.

Five areas of interaction quality were also coded for each video to assess participants’ mastery of evidence-based strategies: ‘Safe space for learning’; ‘Child engagement in Conversational Reading’; ‘Promotion of learning and language’; ‘Establishing Joint Attention’; and ‘Child Positioning’. These were scored on a scale of 0–4, where 0 indicated no observation of the behaviour and 4 indicated consistent demonstration of the behaviour. The first three areas were adapted from the behavioural markers identified within the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pre-K version) (La Paro & Pianta, 2012). The following behavioural markers from CLASS dimensions were considered for coding interactions between individual participants and children: Teacher sensitivity, positive climate (safe space for learning), instructional learning formats and productivity (child engagement in Conversational Reading), and concept development, quality of feedback, and language modelling (promotion of learning and language). The latter two areas were included, as they are key components of the 3S strategy.

2.3.2. Participant Engagement and Perceptions of the Program

First, in the coach record for each coaching cycle, researchers rated participants’ level of engagement in the program on a scale of zero to four, based on participants’ level of engagement in the coaching discussion and their response to feedback. A rating of zero represented no engagement in the coaching; a rating of four indicated that the participant was highly engaged. The data relating to participant engagement from the coach records were analysed using descriptive statistics. Second, qualitative participant feedback on the project was collected during teleconferences. Finally, a survey was distributed at the end of the project, in which participants were asked to rate six items on the impact of the program on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. Participants were invited to elaborate on the reasons for their responses using free-text fields. Participants also ranked the impact of participation on aspects of their professional practice from 1 (most useful) to 6 (least useful) and were asked to ‘tell a story’ about their participation in the program using free-text fields. Qualitative data were analysed using a reflexive thematic approach to identify patterns of meaning in responses (Byrne, 2022).

3. Results

3.1. Participant Details

Twelve FaFT sites were originally invited to take part; however, not all sites and participants were engaged for the full duration of the 12-month study (2018–2019). Of 19 original participants, 14 participants across 10 FaFT sites (9 × remote and 1 × regional site) were included in the main analyses (8 FEs and 6 FLOs), having submitted at least two videos of practice. All FEs were non-Indigenous women with teaching qualifications; all FLOs were Aboriginal women who have standing in their local communities. The ages of the children engaged in the Conversational Reading interactions ranged from one year and one month to five years (M = 3 years 2.5 months).

Content and Frequency of Coaching Feedback

The types of feedback provided to participants on their videos were primarily focused on practices linked to the stages of the See step of Conversational Reading. Feedback on this step was provided to all 14 participants included in this analysis, for a total of 60 times, and included interactions such as the adult checking the child’s gaze and establishing joint attention with the child. As the study progressed and participants’ implementation of the See step became consolidated in their practice, the content of the feedback shifted to focus on subsequent steps in Conversational Reading. For example, feedback was given on checking comprehension of the new word (Show) and eliciting a verbal utterance of the new word (Say). In addition, participants who were faithfully using the See step were provided feedback about flexible implementation of the 3S steps, moving between the 3S steps in response to the child (12 participants, 28 times). Feedback was also offered on consolidating children’s learning, such as language learning and extending children’s thinking by using increasingly complex Show and Say questions.

3.2. Mastery of Implementation

As shown in Figure 2, participants demonstrated improvements over the study duration in their mastery of Conversational Reading strategies. Participants’ average scores were 4.0 for ‘safe space for learning’ and 3.9 for ‘child engagement’ (maximum score: 4.0). The presence of explicit behaviours that promote children’s learning and language was less consistent, with average scores of 2.2 (maximum score: 4.0). However, an increase in this type of interaction was observed over time, from an average of 1.6 in video 1 to 3.0 in video 8. In relation to the 3S strategies, participants’ average ratings for child positioning were 3.4 and 2.5 for checking the child’s gaze to establish joint attention (maximum score: 4.0). Average scores for each of these steadily improved between each coaching cycle, from an average of 2.5 in the first video to 3.8 in the last video for child positioning, with an average of 1.3 in the first video to 3.5 in the last video for checking child gaze.

3.2.1. Frequency of 3S Implementation

The frequency of participants’ use of 3S steps generally improved over the course of their engagement in the program (see Figure 3). Participants’ use of the See strategy increased from an average of 9.6 times per video in video 1 to an average of 19.5 times per video at video 8. Use of the Show step remained relatively steady across the videos, varying between averages of 7.1 times and 11.6 times (video 2 and video 5, respectively). Use of the Say strategy increased from an average of 8.8 times in video 1 to an average of 22.0 times in video 8, with some fluctuations in between.

The See step is broken down into three parts to establish joint attention. The above data was further analysed to examine which stage of the See step was demonstrated in each video. Participants most frequently used the first part of the See step (naming and pointing to what the child is already looking at to establish joint attention). This step occurred between 7.7. times (video 1) and 12.8 times (video 8) on average. An increase in the use of the second part of See (where the adult draws the child’s attention to a different picture on the other side of the page by naming and pointing) was observed from an average of 1.0 times in video 1 to 6.3 times in video 8. The second part of the See step requires a more complex response from the child as they shift their attention to the image the adult is pointing to. Implementation of the third part of the See step (where the adult draws the child’s attention to a different picture by only naming the object) did not reach a level where it could be considered embedded during the period of this study, remaining at between an average of 0.1 and 0.8 times.

3.2.2. Use of 3S Steps in Combination

Participants’ fidelity in their use of the three See steps in combination increased steadily over time. Scores ranged from 2 to 3 times in video 1 (average score of 2.4) to a uniform score of 4 in video 8 (maximum score: 4). By video 3, four of ten participants were implementing the See, Show, and Say strategies in combination and with fidelity at least twice per video.

3.2.3. Exemplars

All participants in the study demonstrated improvements in the fidelity of their implementation of Conversational Reading strategies over the course of the study. However, three participants demonstrated significant practice change and are presented as exemplars in the findings below. The exemplars were two FEs and one FLO. Names are pseudonyms. The exemplars below demonstrate how the participants benefitted from receiving specific feedback via telephone conversations with the coaches. Coaches demonstrated active listening, empathy and the use of a strengths-based approach to build trust and rapport with participants. The delivery of specific feedback and targeted questions was also used to encourage reflection and collaborative goal setting during the coaching conversations.

3.2.4. Exemplar 1, Jodie

Exemplar one captures the journey of Jodie (FE), who demonstrated an early, rapid shift in practice which was sustained over the course of the study. An increase in the use of the three parts of the See step was exemplified by the changes observed in Jodie’s practice. Jodie implemented Conversational Reading with two different children across videos 1 to 4. She demonstrated a rapid increase in the implementation of Conversational Reading strategies (particularly the See step), which was then sustained over the course of the study. Video 2 showed an increase in the first part of the See step, compared to video 1, and the introduction of the second part of the See step. In video 3, Jodie’s use of the first part of the See step increased still further, and she then introduced the third part of the See step for the first time. The final video (4) demonstrated that the first and second parts of the See step had been embedded into Jodie’s implementation, but that further practice was required to strengthen the third part of the See step (Figure 4). This reflects the success of the targeted, strengths-based coaching conversations, which scaffolded Jodie to reflect on her own practice and identify specific effective strategies, followed by repeated opportunities to practice embedding these strategies with children (see Section 2.2. The Coaching Program for more information). The complexity of the goals set with Jodie during coaching conversations were progressively developed in line with Jodie’s confidence and mastery of each part of the strategy (i.e., the final part of the See step was set as a goal once Jodie had mastered the first parts of the strategy).

3.2.5. Exemplar 2, Maggie

Exemplar 2 details the practice change for Maggie (FE). This exemplar illustrates how the 3S strategy can be used with fidelity while maintaining responsiveness to an individual child’s developmental needs. Maggie worked with a single child across the study to support the child’s learning. This example emphasises the importance of Maggie’s knowledge of the individual child’s needs and capabilities, which informed planning for the implementation of Conversational Reading. The child had been identified as requiring language intervention and was awaiting further cognitive and language assessment. In the interim, Maggie implemented Conversational Reading with the child as often as possible. Maggie’s primary focus—which was discussed and agreed with the coach during introductory conversations—was to maintain and extend the child’s engagement and increase their exposure to vocabulary using the See step. During each coaching conversation, Maggie and the coach reflected on the child’s interactions during the video-recorded sessions and collaboratively set goals to increase the complexity of Show questions to check the child’s language comprehension and to monitor their engagement. To address language avoidance, Maggie then carefully planned Say questions to require a verbal response appropriate to the child’s language ability. This included prompting the expression of new vocabulary in a single word response or eliciting a longer verbal response built from words the child had previously expressed (

Table 1. Example of the 3S steps used in combination.

3S Step	Title 2
See statement introducing descriptive language	“You are looking at a pink teddy bear.”
Show question prompting recall and understanding of colour concept	“Where is the thing that is pink?”
Say question to elicit three-word utterance from child	“Can you say ‘pink teddy bear’?”

).

3.2.6. Exemplar 3, Sonia

In Exemplar 3, Sonia’s (FLO) response to very specific, targeted feedback in her subsequent implementation of Conversational Reading is highlighted. Findings from Exemplar 3, Sonia (FLO), highlight the impact of targeted feedback on her implementation of Conversational Reading through two examples—the first relating to the second part of the See step with a child aged three years and nine months and the second illustrating their increased use of descriptive language with a child aged one year and five months. Sonia dramatically increased their use of the second part of the See step from once in Video 2 to five times in video 3, after she received clear direction during a coaching conversation to practice drawing the child’s attention to the other side of the page by naming and pointing to something the child was not looking at. In Video 3, Sonia regularly checked the child’s gaze and intentionally shifted the child’s attention. Sonia also increased their use of descriptive language following reflection and feedback in a coaching conversation. During the coaching sessions, Sonia and the coach identified the need to gradually increase the complexity of vocabulary used with the child. Accordingly, potential ‘See’ statements from the book were documented in Sonia’s planning documents. Over three videos, Sonia built up the number of descriptive words in her See statements.

Table 2. Excerpts from Sonia’s planning document and video transcript.

	Extracts from Planning Documents
	Vocabulary (Examples from Book)	See Statements	Actual See Statements Used in Interaction
Video 3	Home; Bed; Baby; Nana; Flowers; Swimming pool; Butterfly; Horse; Cat; Rabbit; Duck; Elephant; Tiger; Monkey; Crocodile	“Can you see the butterfly?” “You are looking at the horse”	“You are looking at the teddy bear” “It’s a rabbit”
Video 4	Furry penguin; Bumpy strawberry; Sparkly moon; Shiny trunk; Soft butterfly; Fluffy cloud	“You can see a crocodile” “You’re looking at a fluffy penguin”	That’s a red strawberry” “That’s a bee. You are touching a black bee” “That’s a penguin. Fluffy penguin.”
Video 5	As above (video 4)		“It’s a fluffy, white cloud” “Bumpy, red strawberry” “That’s a blue truck. A shiny, blue truck.”

provides examples from Sonia’s planning documents pertaining to Videos 3, 4, and 5, followed by an excerpt of actual statements used, with emphasis given to denote her increased use of descriptive language.

In Sonia’s plan for Video 3, the planned See statements did not include any descriptive words, despite descriptive words appearing in the vocabulary section of the plan. Following discussion during coaching about the importance of descriptive language to build children’s vocabulary, Sonia’s plan for Video 4 included adjectives, and she continued to use these in her interactions during Conversational Reading. For Video 5, the same book was used, so the same plan pertained, with Sonia continuing to build on her use of descriptive language, adding language about colour and texture for the child and using frequent repetition to support the child’s comprehension.

3.3. Participant Perceptions of and Engagement with the Program

The 14 participants included in the main analyses uploaded a total of 70 videos; 63% of their total expected videos. The average length of videos was 4 min and 37 s. During coaching teleconferences, participants’ level of engagement was rated by coaches as high, with participants’ mean engagement score of 3.78 (maximum score: 4). When lower ratings were assigned, they typically reflected a participant’s failure to review the online feedback prior to the discussion or a participant having lower levels of questioning or attention due to distracting circumstances at their location.

Participant Feedback

Feedback was collected from all participants during coaching sessions, and ten of 14 participants completed the participant survey at the end of the program (7 FEs and 3 FLOs). Analysis of participant feedback from all sources (surveys and teleconferences) indicated that the virtual coaching model supported their understanding and application of 3S strategies, and their confidence to work with families to implement 3S. In the feedback provided, participants also reported on their satisfaction with the program and features of the program, which supported them to implement Conversational Reading. These themes are elaborated below and illustrated with example participant quotations.

Participants generally valued participating in the program. Seventy percent of survey participants reported the coaching model effectively supported their understanding, 50% stated it had improved their confidence in Conversational Reading and 90% said that participation in the program had improved their practice. Participants identified increased clarity around joint attention and the See step as a key mechanism to building understanding of the 3S strategy: “First, I thought the study was going to be hard for me then I got used to it. I have enjoyed doing it and being part of it because it is very important for me so I can work in my FaFT with parents and children” (FLO); “It’s making me better, making me more aware so I can be better for our kids” (FLO); and, “It has helped me really know each of the steps and strategies and language I need to use” (FE).

Eighty percent of survey respondents identified the coaching teleconferences and the feedback on their videos as aspects of the virtual coaching model which most supported them to improve their practice: “The feedback is very helpful. You think you’re doing it but then you reflect and improve. It’s a great process”. (FE) Watching videos of their own practice was seen as the most useful aspect of coaching by 50% of survey participants, although 40% of participants found watching their videos the least useful aspect of the program. The remaining two aspects of the coaching process—developing an action plan and planning for Conversational Reading—were ranked as the least useful by participants overall. However, participants’ open text commentary indicated that support for planning for Conversational Reading, including the provision of a template and support identifying intentional learning goals for children was highly valued. Ninety percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that coaching helped them focus on planning Conversational Reading interactions and saw it as a benefit for making interactions with children explicit with intentional learning goals: “Planning, thinking it through first. Intentionality is so important to make an impact, and you know you’ve had a valid learning interaction” (FE); “The planning template allowed me to break up the steps and have more ideas about that I was going to say and the prompts I was going to use, before reading with a child” (FLO).

Most (80%) of the survey participants indicated they would participate in further virtual coaching. Two participants indicated they would not participate in the program again. Of these, one FE expressed a preference for face-to-face coaching and one FLO cited lack of time: “I wish I wasn’t so busy and had more time to commit” (FLO). In relation to practice, 90% of participants in the survey referred to improvement in their practice following participation in the program. Many reported that their confidence and intentionality in implementing 3S had improved and that participation had supported their planning for and reflection on the implementation of Conversational Reading with individual children: “The online coaching study and feedback has helped me as a teacher, improved my practice and I have been more reflective both from the coaching feedback and watching my videos. The Conversational Reading plan has focused me on being intentional in both my conversations and planning for the child” (FE).

An impact of the program frequently identified by participants was the flow-on effect on their engagement with families. Participants reported having more frequent coaching conversations with families as a result of the program. Both FEs and FLOs noted that the explicit feedback they received as part of the program strongly supported these interactions, allowing them to focus on the key behaviours in the 3S strategy and emphasising these with families. Having videos to share 3S with families was identified as a helpful resource: “As my own understanding developed, I was able to talk to families about the steps and coach them in using See, Show, Say” (FE); “Sharing videos at the start of group time is extremely valuable for our families. It’s helping FaFT become more intentional and creating shared spaces for everyone’s learning” (FE).

Fifty percent of survey participants also noted the impact of study participation on families and children in their FaFT programs, including its impact on children’s learning. Forty percent mentioned that they had noticed changes in families’ skills and understanding over the course of the program: “I gained so much from participating in this process, and as a result my focus child and his family also gained which meant it benefited the child’s progress” (FE).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate if the implementation of virtual coaching for FEs and FLOs in FaFT playgroups supported their fidelity of implementation of Conversational Reading 3a strategies and to understand participants’ perceptions of the program. It built on previous evidence relating to the impact of face-to-face 3a coaching (Eadie et al., 2020), but with a focus on online delivery suited for remote Aboriginal community settings. For the 14 participants who were engaged throughout the program, we found that a virtual coaching program was an effective mechanism to improve their mastery and fidelity of their Conversational Reading implementation. In particular, targeted feedback on the active ingredients of teaching strategies combined with viewing their practices via video, discussing these in coaching sessions and individualised, targeted achievable goals supported participants’ knowledge of the strategies, their fidelity of implementation, and increased the frequency with which they used the strategies.

In relation to participants’ mastery of the Conversational Reading approach, findings show that participants were consistently attentive and connected with the children with whom they were engaging in Conversational Reading. The presence of explicit behaviours that promote children’s learning and language promotion was less consistent but increased over time. Practices of positioning the child to establish joint attention and checking the child’s gaze also increased over the course of the program. In relation to the fidelity of implementation, we found that participants’ use of the See and Say strategy as intended increased over the course of the program. Participants most frequently used the first part of the See step, while use of the Show step remained relatively steady, and participants’ use of the three steps in combination increased.

It is important to note that the age of the child impacts which levels of the 3S strategy are appropriate for use, and the less frequent application of the Say step is appropriate for participants working with non-verbal children. Further, many of the children speak Australian English as a second or third language, and only the FLOs involved in the study speak the language and can purposefully build first language alongside English. Knowledge of the child and planning clear learning goals and use of the Conversational Reading strategies supported participants to focus on the intention of each step to support children’s learning. As each individual participant focused on their use of See, Show, Say, and children’s responses, they deepened their knowledge of how each step supported different aspects of children’s language. This, in turn, saw a more purposeful and faithful implementation of the steps.

The coaching model was generally well-received, with participants recognising the benefit of targeted feedback and the impact of this on their skills and confidence in relation to planning and intentional teaching. The acceptability of the program is likely to have been influenced by the strength-based coaching approach and the way in which the model involved FEs and FLOs working alongside families as children’s first teachers, embedding shared goals for children and the use of first languages within Conversational Reading. As illustrated in the coaching feedback, building participants’ knowledge on the use of 3S strategies supported their purposeful implementation and confidence in sharing strategies with families. In this way, findings from this study demonstrate the value of supported playgroups in remote Aboriginal communities to build both staff and family confidence and self-efficacy as children’s first teachers.

These positive findings are in line with other studies of virtual coaching programs, which compared remote to face-to-face delivery (Kraft et al., 2018; Snell et al., 2019), indicating this model of delivery shows promise for other communities where face-to-face coaching is not available, especially for staff with differing qualifications and expertise. The program described in this study was offered following face-to-face training of equal or lower dosage than other remote coaching programs for preschool teachers and education support workers. However, the inclusion of teleconferences in addition to written feedback is a point of difference which may have affected the outcome, but which may make this program more resource-intensive than those which offered written feedback on videos only (Powell et al., 2010; R. Pianta et al., 2017). Further research on the optimum balance of telephone vs. written feedback would be warranted.

The model of coaching developed shows promise for wider implementation, particularly for educators in remote communities, where access to high-quality professional learning and development can be limited. However, the ability to reach conclusions about the implications of the study is limited by its small scale and low retention rate of participants. Participants withdrew from the study due to cultural and maternity leave, changes in staff reducing their capacity to participate and ending their employment with the FaFT program. Despite staffing stability being a criterion for the selection of sites, retention in the study was hampered by high staff turnover and the impact of understaffing, an issue common in remote settings (Wakerman et al., 2019). The reduction in participation over time in this study may have led to bias in the findings, since the more engaged or skilled participants may have been more likely to continue in the study. In addition, further research could investigate the sustained effects of different program dosage or modes of delivery, and the applicability of the program in other cultural contexts. Finally, the impact of such programs on children’s outcomes warrants investigation and would add to the body of research on the impact of the Conversational Reading interactions on children’s learning and development.

5. Conclusions

This study found that the program improved participants’ mastery of Conversational Reading strategies and the fidelity of their implementation. The findings indicate that virtual (online and telephone) coaching can be an effective and meaningful way to build their capacity in implementing evidence-based practices. Participants valued their inclusion in the program and reported increased confidence in their use of Conversational Reading and their ability to support families to adopt Conversational Reading with their children. The model of coaching thus shows promise for wider implementation, particularly in remote communities, where access to high-quality professional learning and development can be limited. Strengthening the quality of early learning programs via accessible, high quality professional development may yield significant benefits for educators, children and families, particularly in remote or highly disadvantaged communities.