Research in early childhood education continues to shed light on the link between the quality of teacher-child interactions and child development, and a growing number of studies have looked at the impact professional learning has on both of those topics. In other words, professional learning for educators has the potential to enhance classroom interactions, thereby improving child outcomes and the overall quality of early childhood education programs. One new study, conducted by Downer and colleagues (2024), compared the impact of different professional learning interventions, including the CLASS Group Coaching (MMCI) course, MyTeachingPartner (MTP) coaching, and a combination of the two, on educators’ understanding and demonstration of high-quality interactions and the subsequent effects on student engagement. Results from this and related studies have the potential to influence education policy, particularly with regard to the delivery of professional learning aimed at improving early childhood education programs. 

We asked Dr. Downer, with the University of Virginia, seven of our burning questions about this recent work1. 

q&A 

  1. Your team was interested in examining the effectiveness and outcomes of a combined course-based and coaching-based professional learning model on educator knowledge and student gains. Why was this exploration important to you and your team?
    These are the two main formats of professional development for pre- and in-service early educators. And, there remain questions in the field about which mode is more effective, as well as whether or not knowledge-building in a course is a necessary foundation prior to coaching being useful.

  2. Your study found that the National Center for Research on Early Childhood Education (NCRECE) course was more beneficial than the MTP coaching when it came to increasing educators’ knowledge of effective interactions, their ability to detect effective interactions, and beliefs about intentional teaching. In addition, the combination of course and coaching did not lead to the anticipated benefits for teachers and children. Why do you think this was the case?
    Yes, knowledge and beliefs shifted after the course but not after coaching. This is not terribly surprising, as the course intentionally targeted these outcomes through activities and assignments. In contrast, coaching was more focused on feedback about interactions in the educators’ classrooms, with only indirect emphasis on knowledge and beliefs.

  3. What do you believe contributed to the lasting effects of the course-based intervention?
    The sustained impacts of the course on observed instructional quality are promising, as very few studies follow teachers into the classroom the year after they have completed coursework to see if their practices have shifted.

    As you might expect, these effects diminished somewhat compared to the more immediate impacts of the course on instruction shortly after completion of the in-service course experience. But the fact that course effects on instructional practice continue to be evident with a new cohort of children in a year after course completion suggest that changes to practice initiated by the course experience may become a sustained part of their teaching toolkit. Interestingly, we had anticipated that receiving coaching after the course would contribute to maintaining this effect on practice, or even expanding the change, but this combined impact did not happen.

  4. Contrary to findings from the course-based intervention, findings from the coaching-intervention group saw a positive increase in children’s engagement with their teachers. What might explain this finding?
    Although the course incorporated activities that were practice-based, there were limits to how individualized and deep the focus on each teacher’s practice in their setting could go.

    Additionally, this paper was looking at children’s engagement a year after the course was complete, so none of the course content/activities had been applied to this particular group of children. In contrast, coaching was entirely individualized and responsive to what teachers were experiencing in their classrooms the year that children’s engagement was assessed. Although MTP coaching is focused on the quality of interactions facilitated by the teacher across the entire classroom, it is not uncommon for this coaching to dig into interactions with specific children, and teachers are being encouraged to ‘try out’ new practices that can occur one-on-one or in small/large groups of children. Since a fundamental aspect of quality interactions is teacher responsiveness to individual and classroom needs, it makes sense that coaching on interactions might then lead to children being more engaged with a responsive teacher.

  5. We work with educators who value professional learning but point to the growing demands of teaching as a barrier to engagement. Based on your research, what might educational institutions do to help increase educator engagement in professional learning programs?
    Program leadership needs to consider ongoing professional learning to be an actual part of early educators’ jobs. This means making space for it in the daily/weekly schedule, as well as tying participation and related changes in practices and competencies to recognition and compensation.

  6. Considering the barriers of implementing individualized coaching at scale, what might make the adoption of such professional learning practices more attainable while maintaining its effectiveness?
    Research-practice partnerships need to continue working toward a better understanding of who would benefit the most from coaching and how much coaching is required to see positive changes in interactions. That way, coaching resources (and related funds) are targeting areas of highest need, and doing so efficiently. The alternative is to water down effective coaching models, which is a surefire way to reduce impact. There is a place for both coursework and coaching in helping early educators grow and expand their knowledge and teaching practices. However, we still have a lot to learn as a field about how to choose between, align, or combine these two in-service professional development offerings to maximize benefits. Virtual coaching is 100% feasible and effective, and offers up efficiencies over in-person coaching.

  7. What are the key takeaways that you want to leave with readers? Is there anything else you would like to share?
    There is a place for both coursework and coaching in helping early educators grow and expand their knowledge and teaching practices. However, we still have a lot to learn as a field about how to choose between, align, or combine these two in-service professional development offerings to maximize benefits. Virtual coaching is 100% feasible and effective, and offers up efficiencies over in-person coaching.


1. Citation:  Downer, J. T., Doyle, N. B., Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., Field, S., Hamre, B. K., ... & Scott-Little, C. (2024). Coaching and coursework focused on teacher–child interactions during language/literacy instruction: Effects on teacher outcomes and children’s classroom engagement. Early Education and Development, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2024.2303604